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.

Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas

  • English

Name: Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG)
Date: 21 Oct 2024
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: Second Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook
1) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Subsequent Application Rounds (Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
No

If no, please explain

The Registries Stakeholder Groups (RySG) notes that the draft AGB language for the Subsequent Application Rounds section is not consistent with ALL of the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations on this topic. Most notably, the proposed AGB text is missing any reference to Recommendation 3.5, which provides an opportunity for the GNSO Council to recommend pausing the New gTLD Program if needed. The Annex of “Relevant Outputs” for this draft section also includes implementation guidance around strings that are “still being processed” from a previous application round. The RySG recognizes that it may be more appropriate to incorporate this guidance into a different section of the AGB, but is noting it here for completeness.

2) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Background Screening (Topic 22: Registrant Protections) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
No

If no, please explain

The draft of this section notes that publicly traded corporations may undergo more limited background screening in section 1.1.2, which is consistent with Recommendation 22.4. However, it does not provide any further detail about how the background screening for such a corporation would differ from the screening of all other applicants. The RySG suggests that this section of the AGB will be clearer for future applicants if that is clarified, to the extent feasible. Additionally, it is challenging to fully assess this draft section while section 1.2.4.1 “Addressing Issues Identified during Background Screening” is not yet finalized

3) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for String Similarity Review (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes

If no, please explain

The RySG notes it is difficult to fully assess this draft section until the String Similarity Guidelines are published.

4) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Internationalized Domain Names (Topic 25: IDNs) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes

If no, please explain

While the RySG believes this draft section is consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations, we note that it may need to be updated in light of recent guidance from the ICANN Board regarding the resolution of contention sets.

5) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation (Topic 33: Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes
6) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Registrar-Non-Discrimination / Registry Registrar Standardization (Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes
7) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Registrar Support for New gTLDs (Topic 38: Registrar Support for New gTLDs) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes
8) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Topic 25: IDNs) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes
9) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Closed Generics (Topic 23: Closed Generics) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
Yes