Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Agreements

gTLD Registry Agreements establish the rights, duties, liabilities, and obligations ICANN requires of registry operators to run gTLDs.

ICM Overview: The GAC's Request for Information

ICM Overview: The GAC's Request for Information

ICM Overview:
The GAC's Request for Information




(Produced by ICM in support of their application  |  5 January 2007)


In its Wellington Communiqué, the GAC expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Twomey’s letter of February 11, 2006 to Chairman Tarmizi.

Specifically, the GAC indicated that Dr. Twomey’s letter failed to provide: “sufficient detail regarding the rationale for the Board determination that the application had overcome the deficiencies noted in the Evaluation Report” and requested a “written explanation of the Board decision, particularly with regard to the sponsored community and public interest criteria outlined in the sponsored top level domain selection criteria.”

The following information is provided as further response to the GAC’s information request:

  • ICANN sought the input of recognized, well-regarded experts in relevant fields to evaluate the sTLD proposals.
  • ICANN secured the services of three highly skilled DNS engineers to conduct the technical review, and identified well-respected members of the business and finance community to review the business and financial aspects of the proposals.
    • To the extent that either the technical or business evaluation team reports identified deficiencies, applicants were required to resolve those deficiencies to the satisfaction of the relevant group of evaluators.
  • The skills and expertise needed to determine whether or not an sTLD proposal met the sponsorship criteria do not correspond neatly with any particular discipline or profession.
  • The sponsorship and other issues evaluation team (the “S&OI ET”) reported that they had “the most complex” evaluation task, requiring evaluators to:
    • Apply a large number of evaluation criteria across a broad array of different TLD elements;
    • Make “subjective and futuristic judgments” about the proposals;
    • Consider issues that were “outside of the direct scope of the RFP” including, for example, the “social policy environment of global DNS governance”; and
    • Assess the proposals in light of their knowledge of existing gTLDs, sTLDs, ccTLDs, and ICANN’s - new and evolving - approach to these issues.
  • The S&OI ET concluded that eight of the ten applications received by ICANN failed in one or more ways to meet the sponsorship criteria.
  • In light of the investment required to complete an application, in many cases for the second time, the Board determined to offer applicants the chance to respond to the S&OI ET findings.
  • Accordingly, applicants for .jobs, .travel, .xxx, .tel (Telnic), .asia, and .mobi clarified their original answers, provided additional information, or proposed changes to bring their applications into compliance with the evaluation criteria.
  • ICM Registry responded to the S&OI ET report promptly, and the Board discussed the application on four separate occasions over a period of many months. In addition, at the request of the Board, ICM Registry and its advisors appeared in person in Mar del Plata to address the Board’s questions.
The decision to override the evaluators’ judgment was reached in all cases because the applicants answered questions and clarified issues that had been of concern to the evaluators, and/or otherwise responded to the evaluation reports to the satisfaction of a majority of the members of the Board.