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.

Ce contenu est uniquement disponible en

  • English

Name: Nick Wood
Date: 22 Jul 2025
Affiliation: MARQUES
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: Final Proceeding for Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook (AGB)
1) Is the language in draft Module 1: The Applicant Journey 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

1.2.16 Post Contracting: The text should reference the Next Round Base RA art 2.20 which sets out the circumstances in which an extension may be granted to the one-year period from signing to delegation. For completeness, it would also make sense to reference RA art 4.3(b), which sets out the termination provision for failing to meet the timeline.

2) Is the language in draft Module 2: Application Submission 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

2.1.1, 2.3.1, and 1.2.1.2 (in Module 1) Payment of Invoices: These sections all refer to the timing of payment of the invoice for the application as being 30 days from receipt of invoice or 7 days from the close of the application window, whichever is the sooner. This means that for many applicants the application window will effectively be truncated, since any applicant who submits an application towards the end of the stated application window could have as little as 7 days to make payment. Many companies operate financial systems and processes which would make this next to impossible. Having a full 30 days for payment of an invoice would be a minimum requirement. We urge you to allow at least a full 30 days for payment of all invoices. Allowing an applicant to access their invoice prior to final application submission would also be preferable, so that applicants can make arrangements for payment as soon as possible. 2.3.3 Refunds: SubPro Implementation Guidance 18.5 recommended that, where the name collision risk is determined after applications are submitted, then applicants who consequently withdraw should be granted a full refund. Instead, AGB section 2.3.3.1.4 provides for only a 65% refund in such a case. This is not something that could have been known by the applicant prior to submission and it is unfair that they should forfeit such a significant portion of the application fee. The refund schedule generally is significantly altered from the 2012 round, to the detriment of applicants. This is exacerbated by the fact that any communication with a view to resolving issues, and all private resolution, has now been banned. Applicants cannot negotiate a solution, and take a significant financial hit if they withdraw even at a very early stage. Particularly unfair is that the highest level of refund is only 65%, compared to 80% in the 2012 round, and applies only for a very short period of time, to 10 days after String Confirmation Day. Applicants withdrawing after this will only receive at most 35%. This almost certainly includes all those who receive a GAC Early Warning, since the period for such Early Warnings runs for 90 days post-String Confirmation Day (as compared to 80% refund applied to those withdrawing within 21 days of a GAC EW in 2012). The intent of the GAC Early Warning to flag to an applicant that there may be government sensitivities, which they may wish to consider before proceeding, is substantially undermined where an applicant will forfeit the majority of its application fee, should they withdraw. Applicants withdrawing within 21 days of a GAC EW ought to receive 65 %. Similarly, if an applicant for a string is awarded community status following community priority evaluation, any applicants for contending strings who thereby withdraw would receive only a 35% refund. This is extremely unfair, given they could not know that the community status would be upheld until this point. Such applicants should be eligible for a higher refund than 35% - it would be fairer to apply the 65% refund to them.

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.
Yes
4) Is the language in draft Module 4: Contention Set Resolution 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.
Yes
5) Is the language in draft Module 5: Applicant Evaluation Procedures 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.
Yes
6) Is the language in draft Module 6: String and Application Evaluation Procedures 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

6.1.2.4 Brand TLD String: The language in 6.1.2.4 would benefit from clarification. It states that: “A Brand TLD is a string that is identical to the textual elements (for example, a name, word, or phrase) of a registered trademark valid under applicable law and which the applicant operates as a Brand TLD.” The eligibility for a Brand TLD requires that the trade mark has been recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), where the matching rules provide that “When a Trademark contains a special character that cannot be represented in a domain name label, the following rules will apply: − Special characters contained within a Trademark that are unable to be used in a domain name label may be either: (i) omitted; or (ii) replaced by hyphens. − In addition, special characters “@” and “&” contained within a Trademark may be spelled out with appropriate words of the official language(s) of the country/jurisdiction in which the mark is protected.” These same matching rules have been applied in practice if a dotBrand’s trademark includes such a special character, for example an exclamation mark, and this should be reflected in 6.1.2.4 for the avoidance of doubt.

7) Is the language in draft Module 7: General Information 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

7.5: The text should explicitly reference Next Round Base RA art 2.20 which sets out the timeline for completing delegation for a TLD.

8) Is the language in draft Appendix 1: Application Questions 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.
Yes
9) Is the language in draft Appendix 2: Materials related to Geographic Names 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.
Yes
10) Is the language in draft Appendix 3: Objection and Appeal Materials 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.
Yes
11) Is the language in draft Appendix 5: Templates for Standard Financial Profile 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.
Yes
12) Is the language in draft Appendix 6: Predictability Framework 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.
Yes
13) Is the language in draft Appendix 7: Conflict of Interest Process for Service Providers 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.
Yes
14) Is the language in draft Appendix 8: Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Service Providers 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.
Yes
15) Is the language in draft Appendix 9: New gTLD Program: Next Round Privacy Policy 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.
Yes
16) Is the language in draft Appendix 10: Terms and Conditions 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.
Yes