Logo
ICANN
ICANN
Filtered Search

Are you sure you want to sign out from https://www.icann.org?

If you want to sign out from both https://www.icann.org and ICANN Account, click here.

Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

هذا المحتوى متوفر فقط باللغة (أو اللغات)

  • English

Name: Neha Nair
Date: 23 Jul 2025
Affiliation: Radix Technologies Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: Final Proceeding for Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook (AGB)
3) Is the language in draft Module 3: Community Input, Objections, and Appeals consistent with Board-approved recommendations, and are the concepts introduced therein consistent across the AGB? Please note that comments should be made on issues that have not been previously addressed via Public Comment or in discussions with the IRT.
No

If no, please explain

Objection Principles (Module 3.5.10) The AGB text says, “A panel will evaluate the merits of each objection using appropriate general principles, with specific adjudication principles detailed for each objection type. A panel may additionally reference relevant rules of international law in connection with the principles. The objector bears the burden of proof in each case. The principles outlined below remain dynamic, subject to ongoing refinement through consultation with DRSPs, legal experts, and the public.” Concerns: The language does not explicitly require or prohibit the Dispute Resolution Service Providers (DRSPs) or objection panels to follow precedents from the 2012 round. Instead, it says that “appropriate general principles” will apply and the principles specified in the AGB remain “dynamic” - which leaves open the possibility that - - Past decisions may be referenced by some panels, and not by other panels - Past decisions may be considered binding by some panels, and not by other panels - The currently specified principles may be updated with the effect of changing the outcome of the objection -In cases where the principles have been updated from the 2012 round, past decisions may be erroneously be used for this round Unpredictable Outcomes: Put together, the risks of having unpredictable outcomes are significant: - Specially in cases where similar objections will be raised in this round - Applicants and objectors may rely on outcomes from the 2012 round for their decisions - Applicants and objectors are subject to the “dynamic” nature of the current principles, making decision making difficult Suggestion for Mitigation: 1. The AGB should clarify explicitly whether past decisions should or should not be used as precedents 2. Specify that panels should consider past cases where principles have not materially changed, and explain deviations where they occur 3. ICANN should specify when the “ongoing refinement” of the principles will be completed, and it should be prior to the application window opening. 4. Potentially allow for an appeal mechanism where objection outcomes are clearly inconsistent with other similarly situated objection proceedings.