[gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response
Allow me to respond for the BC on Chuck's suggestions. Philip --------------------------------------------------- "a) That new generic top level domains (gTLDs) will be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way." AGREED The process should be as objective and measurable as possible to minimize subjectivity. AGREED Section 22.214.171.124 "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 backgrounds." AGREED 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. DISAGREE with the change. Existing text should stay. Once we reach a position where there is no longer dominance in the registry sector, delighted to talk about this again. 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'. AGREE we need to use consistent language. We need a list of definitions also. 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? DISAGREE. I believe the existing wording captures the committee's discussion.There is a difference between contract enforcement (ICANN) and anti-trust authorities but ICANN does have a mission to improve competition. Leaving the door open for ICANN to take responsibility here is what we discussed. The mechanism for that can be discussed in due course beyond this PDP.