[gtld-council] Comments Chuck Gomes - BC response

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

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 2.5.1.3  "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.