ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gtld-council] Comments from Chuck Gomes on draft new gTLD recommendations

  • To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gtld-council] Comments from Chuck Gomes on draft new gTLD recommendations
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:09:36 +1100

 Comments re. New gTLD PDP Report - 2 Nov 06

Regarding the latest version of the DRAFT GNSO Recommendation Summary of
the New gTLD PDP Committee that is posted on the GNSO site, I have a few
questions and comments.  I understand that the report is not final, but
do think it is important to communicate issues early so that they can be
dealt with as soon as possible.  I don't believe the issues I raise
below will significantly affect the work of the GAC although I do think
we should eventually send them a red-lined version that shows any
changes made.

One item that seems to be missing from the principles is "timeliness" of
the process.  I believe there was strong agreement on the committee that
timeliness is critical.  It could easily be added to the first principle
as follows with my suggested change in bold font: "a) That new generic
top level domains (gTLDs) will be introduced in an orderly, timely and
predictable way."

A second item that appears to be missing from the principles is: The
process should be as objective and measurable as possible to minimize
subjectivity.  I do not believe there was any disagreement on this point
by any committee members.  This could be assumed in the word
"predictable" in the first principle but I personally do not believe
that the word 'predictable' means all that is needed.  I recommend that
this statement be added as the second principle because it follows
reasonably from the first principle.  

Section reads, "In the event that ICANN reasonably believes that
the application for a particular string may not be compliant with the
string requirements, ICANN will refer the issue to a panel of experts
with appropriate backgrounds."  My understanding was that the panel of
experts would only be used in cases where ICANN was not able to make a
decision on the string or when a decision is challenged. Am I incorrect
on that?  The way it is worded sounds like every negative decision that
ICANN makes would be referred to the panel.  If I am correct, I suggest
that the wording be changed to something like this (edits in bold): "In
the event that ICANN reasonably believes that the application for a
particular string is not compliant with the string requirements, ICANN
will notify the applicant right away and the application will be
eliminated from consideration pending any reconsideration process that
might apply. If ICANN is unable to make a definitive determination
whether or not a string is compliant with the string requirements, then
ICANN will refer the issue to a panel of experts with appropriate

Section 2.6 says:  "An applicant for a new gTLD must use ICANN
accredited registrars to provide registration services to Registered
Name Holders (registrants).  The registry shall not act as a registrar
with respect to the TLD (consistent with the current registry-registrar
structural separation requirements, for example, see clause 7.1 (b) and
(c) of the .jobs registry agreement).    An organization wishing to
become a registrar for a new gTLD would need to become accredited using
ICANN's existing accreditation process."  Why was the second sentence
added?  When the RyC raised the problems with regard to the requirement
of always using ICANN accredited registrars for small gTLDs, the
argument that was used by committee members was that the registry
operator could become an ICANN accredited registrar.  The wording of
this section clearly precludes that and I don't recall that the
committee ever agreed on that sentence being a part of the text.  I
suggest that the second sentence be deleted.  If it is not deleted, then
I believe that this issue needs to be revisited by the committee.  It is
clearly inappropriate for the RyC's concerns to be put aside using the
rationale that a registry may become a registrar and then turn around
and say that a registry cannot become a registrar.

In Section 4.4, the term 'license holder' is used twice.  I don't
believe this term is applicable and would suggest changing it to
something like 'contracted party' or 'registry/sponsor'.

Section 4.9 reads as follows:   "Initially rely on the appropriate
external competition/anti-trust Government authorities to ensure
compliance with laws relating to market power or pricing power.   This
can be reviewed after an initial term."  Why does this start with the
word "initially" and why was the second sentence included?  I don't
recall any discussion of ICANN ever becoming a regulator of
competition/anti-trust issues or of any agreement to review this issue
in the future.  I suggest removal of the word "initially" and deleting
the last sentence.  If committee members want to leave the door open for
ICANN becoming a competition/anti-trust regulator, then we need to have
a lot more discussion on this issue.

Attachment: Comments re New gTLD Report - 2 Nov 06.doc
Description: Comments re New gTLD Report - 2 Nov 06.doc

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy