Comments on draft applicant guide

["Aran Jones" <aran.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>]

*dotCYM – response to ICANN's Draft Applicant Guidebook*

*13 December 2008*

* *

1. In *new-gtlddraft-escrow-spec-24oct-08-en.pdf*, the *data escrow
requirements* for registry operators are presented.  The registry operator
is required to engage an independent entity to act as a data escrow agent.  We
need clarification of the status and location of the data escrow agent and
the legal implications of ICANN being named as a third-party beneficiary in
order to assess whether or not this is compatible with UK Data Protection
legislation.  If it is not, we will wish to request necessary changes to the
Applicant Guidebook to confirm with UK Data Protection legislation.

2. In *section 2.3 of the new-gtld-draftagreement-24oct08-en.pdf*, the
registry operator is requested to provide a monthly report to ICANN 'in the
format posted at...' with *no details for the link*.  As above, we require
clarification of the format of this report in order to assess its
compatibility with UK Data Protection legislation.  If it is not compatible,
we will wish to request the necessary changes.

3. In *section 1.5.1 *of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, the gTLD *evaluation
fee* is noted at US$185,000.  This *militates against genuine community bids
*, and while it is a legitimate pricing structure for commercial bids, it
undermines ICANN's stated aim of opening the internet to a wider range of
user groups.  It does not conform to best practice as identified by UK or
European equality legislation.  We wish to suggest that community bids are
dealt with on a different pricing structure.

4. In *section 6.1 *of the New gTLD Draft Agreement, registry operator fees
to ICANN are fixed at a minimum of *US$18,750 per calendar quarter*.  The
replaces the previous fee structure of US$1 per domain per year.  Again,
this is a legitimate pricing structure for commercial bids, but severely
limits the opportunities for reasonable community bids, and thus also
undermines ICANN's stated aim of opening the internet to a wider range of
user groups.  As above, it does not conform to best practice as identified
by UK or European equality legislation.  We wish to suggest that community
bids are dealt with on a *different fee structure*.

5. Also with regards to *section 6.1 *of the New gTLD Draft Agreement, we
wish to note that the fee structures do not make any provisions for *bilingual
registry operators*, who may be required under equality legislation to make
bilingual domain registrations available at no extra cost to the end user.  We
wish to suggest that registry operators who are legally required to operate
bilingually should be dealt with on a different fee structure.

6.  dotCYM Cyf would like to note also that the lack of an established
responsible *body for linguistic and cultural bids* impacts on our ability
to gain the necessary points for a successful bid.  This difficulty has
already been noted and accepted by ICANN, but the necessary alterations to
the points-based approach have not been made.



Siôn Jobbins

on behalf of dotCYM Cyf for the .cym lcTLD

www.dotcym.org