ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Execute GAC Advice before Contention Resolution

  • To: <comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Execute GAC Advice before Contention Resolution
  • From: ".GmbH Top-Level Domain" <dk@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:55:09 +0200

Dear Sirs,


please find attached a proposal that we developed together with some other
community-based applicants to show how the GAC Advice process can be
harmonized with the New gTLD Application Process. The proposal basically
asks to execute the GAC Advice before any contention resolution occurs.
Otherwise an applicant might succeed in the contention set who will be
thrown out because of GAC Advice later in the process. This timing would not
make sense and would potentially create a .XXX like legal situation.


Background: The GAC Advice process should take into account the process and
timing of the whole New gTLD Application Process. The process following the
execution of GAC Advice has to be finished before the Contention Resolution
Process is being initiated. Otherwise an applicant who is willing to provide
the safeguards being asked for in the GAC Advice may have been eliminated in
the process (e.g. by an auction), while the winner of the Contention
Resolution is an applicant who is not willing to abide by the GAC Advice. A
TLD could then not be awarded at all although a suitable candidate was in
place, making the GAC Advice meaningless.


*** GAC Advice Response may become Story Telling ***


Our fear is that many applicants are likely to respond to the GAC Advice in
a manner that is like story telling: Based on a mixture of fiction garnished
with some facts from their applications, applicants will write savvy
responses with only one aim – to calm down the GAC’s concerns and survive
the GAC Advice storm. The “duck and cover” strategy.


Background: According to the Applicant Guidebook, material changes to
applications need to go through a Change Request process. In contention sets
Change Requests that are advantageous to a specific applicant are not likely
to pass due to competitor’s opposition. Even in non-contentious cases Change
Requests may not pass, as they could be anti-competitive. Also, the
permanent opportunity for applicants in contention sets to amend their
applications (by PICs, Change Requests or by the response to a GAC Advice)
raises serious anti-competitive questions, as there is very limited space to
make changes to an application according to the Applicant Guidebook.


Proposed solution: No fiction – only facts! Applicants who have not been
able to determine privacy issues, consumer protection issues or other issues
associated with their TLD application over 12 months after filing their
application raise serious concerns whether they are the appropriate entity
to operate a TLD.


*** GAC and ICANN Board should accept the responsibilities they asked for


Our fear is that close to no decisions will be made to reject applications
that are included in the GAC Advice. It is to be expected that only a
handful of applications, where there is overwhelming support for a rejection
(such as those in IV 1. In the Beijing Communiqué), will actually be
rejected. This might happen due to legal and liability issues or simply lack
of a clear-cut process


Background: Governments demanded instruments – namely GAC Early Warning and
GAC Advice – to prevent applications they were unhappy with. Now the GAC
filed an Advice for more than 500 applications, asking for more security,
more accountability and more appropriate operation of regulated industries
TLDs, among other issues. According to the Applicant Guidebook, the
consequence of not fulfilling the GAC Advice (without the option to distort
the application to an noncredible extent) would be a dismissal of the gTLD.
Unfortunately, the current GAC Advice process poses loopholes for all
parties involved which offer the chance not to be responsible for this
dismissal but instead not make any decision at all. This could be the next
occasion where ICANN does not serve the Public Interest and the Community
but those that play hardball in this application process by their lobbying
and financial power.


Proposed solution: GAC and ICANN Board should accept the responsibilities
they asked for!


Kind regards,


Dirk Krischenowski



TLDDOT GmbH (.GmbH Top-Level-Domain)

Akazienstraße 2

10823 Berlin

Tel: +49 30 49782354

Fax: +49 30 49782356

Mobile: +49 173 2339156

 <mailto:krischenowski@xxxxxxxxxx> krischenowski@xxxxxxxxxx

 <http://www.dotgmbh.de> www.dotgmbh.de


Registergericht: Handelsregister am Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRA
124498 B; Geschäftsführer: Dirk Krischenowski; Steuernummer 30/035/03469





Attachment: gac-advice-procedure.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy