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: Susan Payne
Date: 7 Feb 2025
Affiliation: Com Laude
Email: [email protected]
Original Public Comment: Third Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round AGB
1) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Application Comments (Topic 28: Role of Application Comment) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
No

If no, please explain

s1.2 - the term "have a relationship with any applicants or applications" is vague/too narrow. Commenters should be disclosing not just if they, for example, work for a conflicting applicant or are involved with a conflicting application, but also if they have some commercial or other reason to be opposed to the application they are commenting on, e.g. due to being an industry competitor, even if that competitor is not itself an applicant.

4) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Singular/Plural Notification (Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations?
No

If no, please explain

Although the section aligns with the Supplemental Recommendations submitted to and adopted by the ICANN Board, there appears to be a drafting error in s4.6, since the following text does not make sense. "The challenge will be reviewed by ICANN. It will be determined that ICANN made a factual or procedural error when it determined that (1) the applicant’s applied-for string is a singular or plural form of another applied-for string, or (2) the dictionary submitted to document the singular/plural claim meets the criteria established in the AGB. The challenge will be assessed under a “clearly erroneous” standard of review." Amending the second sentence above to read as follows might be sufficient to address the concern: "It will be determined whether ICANN made a factual or procedural error when it determined that ..."

9) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Post-Contracting consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations
Yes

If no, please explain

It might be helpful to new applicants to also point them to ICANN's Registry Stakeholder Group as a potentially valuable resource, and to include information about the RySG and the New TLD Applicant Group (NTAG), if this is reconvened, on the New gTLD website. The AGB might include text along the following lines, in the final paragraph and before the sentence "For additional information...": "New Registry Operators may also wish to consider joining ICANN's Registry Stakeholder Group, information about which can be found on the New gTLD Program Website".

12) Is the proposed Next Round Applicant Guidebook language for Different TLD Types (Topic 4: Different TLD Types) consistent with the relevant SubPro Final Report recommendations and IDN EPDP Phase 1 Final Report recommendations?
No

If no, please explain

Table XX and the accompanying text seems inconsistent with what the IRT has recently been discussing regarding conditional evaluation fees, in that it may be understood to be saying that the only TLD type where there are additional fees on top of the standard $227,000 application fee are those which go to CPE. So, for example, in the case of Community TLDs, there is a reference to additional fees for CPE but not to additional fees for the evaluation of Spec 12 registration policies. Similarly, many of the other TLD types in the table have been identified as subject to additional evaluation fees, e.g. Brands, COCE, etc., but the table says there are no additional fees.