ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on Applicant Guidebook Discussion Draft, April 2011

  • To: 6gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments on Applicant Guidebook Discussion Draft, April 2011
  • From: newgtld@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 15:31:53 +0900

Comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 2011)

First of all, we would like to express our appreciation for all the hard work 
that has resulted in the many valuable changes included in the latest version 
of the guidebook. We are also very pleased to note that provisions which take 
into account the situation of potential .brand applicants have now been 
included in the Registry Code of Conduct. 

Use of Geographic Names at the Second and Subsequent Levels 
The treatment of geographic names at the second and subsequent levels of the 
new TLDs is still one of our main causes for concern. Question 22 of the 
current DAG invites the applicant to “describe proposed measures for protection 
of geographic names at the second and other levels in the applied-for gTLD” 
including “any applicable rules and procedures for reservation and/or release 
of such names”. The applicant must show how they will incorporate GAC 
principles and it is recommended to refer to the mecha
nisms employed by .info. While the importance of protecting geographic names 
under the generic TLDs is understandable, we ask ICANN to recognize the special 
nature of potential .brand applicants, and to either relieve them of this 
requirement or provide (or grant permission to independently develop and 
employ) a universal solution which will allow .brand applicants to release the 
reserved geographic names (as well as two-label country codes) for their 
exclusive internal use all at once.
A release mechanism by which names that were not claimed by any government 
during the allocated period stay reserved and are either registered upon 
approval by the relevant government or go into a pool of available names 
(whilst still remaining at risk of government objection) would be inappropriate 
for .brands. This is because of the very nature of .brand TLDs, where names are 
registered for internal use only and the website content is brand-specific 
rather than representative of any country. The GAC could
 implement a universal solution whereby a centrally maintained list of 
countries and ccTLD operators who have agreed to their country names/country 
codes being registered under .brand TLDs (without the need for special 
procedures) is made available. As a result, any Registry who wishes to use such 
names will simply enter into an agreement with GAC or another relevant body, 
rather than having to consult with over 200 different governments individually. 
If introducing such a mechanism is not viable, .brand ap
plicants would benefit greatly from being exempt from the requirement to create 
reservation and release mechanisms for geographic names.

Alternatively, GAC could provide a list of contact points for the government 
representatives associated with each second level string. Moreover, governments 
could be obliged to respond to a request from the registry within a set period 
of time. 

The intention of the new TLDs is to add maximum value to all the Internet 
users, and Internet users will definitely benefit greatly from being able to 
find and access their preferred brands according to the geographic locations. 
However, this may be delayed unnecessarily if the release procedures for 
geographic names are overcomplicated. 

ICANN has previously stated that both ICANN and GAC recognize that it is 
important not to limit the possibilities of certain types of TLD such as .brand 
21, 2011, p.128-129), and we would like to recommend that this is reflected in 
the draft in the form of  specific provisions.

GAC Early Warning/GAC Advice
Please clarify the guidelines which the GAC will refer to when making GAC Early 
Warnings and GAC Advice. The current explanation does not make it clear as to 
what kind of issues would cause a string to be considered questionable or 
sensitive and at the moment it seems that almost anything falls into the scope 
of GAC decision-making.

.Brand Applicants in General 
The Registry Code of Conduct specifically mentions the case in which the 
“Registry Operator maintains all registrations in the TLD for its own use and 
(ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or otherwise make available to 
any unaffiliated third party any registrations in the TLD”. It will greatly 
benefit potential .brand applicants if a separate application category were to 
be created for such a model, or alternatively, if such a model were to be 
identified in the main body of the applicant guide

Requirements for the Length of the Answers
Where there are requirements for numbers of pages per answer (applies to a 
number of the 50 questions), please provide details regarding the necessary 
font size, page size and spacing between lines, (correspondent with those used 
in TAS). Alternatively, please set the length of the answers by number of words 
or characters. 

Application Process in General
Please once again clarify the application process by providing a diagram with 
the updated timelines for each portion of the process. As of now, there are 
some places that have confusing information. 

Thank you very much for reading and considering our comments. 

Brights Consulting Inc.
New gTLD Team

 7F PMO Hatchobori,  3-22-13 Hatchobori,
 Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0032, Japan
 TEL.+81-50-5536-4005  FAX.+81-3-3523-0338

This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If 
you are not the named addressee of this message please let us know by reply and 
destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any 
other person. 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy