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.

Контент доступен только на следующих языках

  • English

Name: DeeDee Halleck
Date: 23 Jul 2025
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

As a member of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency, I think that ICANN should remain as a multi-stakeholder organization and respect the work of the different stakeholders in negotiating fair and responsible policies. The current proposal ignores the previously agreed upon negotiations that respected the rights of specific communities, organizations and tribes that however small are true representatives of agreed upon distinct populations and groups. These must be protected. To promote the current proposal the use of the word "community" is false and appropriated in a way that in no way represents univerally agreed upon definitions of community. As a practicioner and promoter of authentic community media for over five decades, as a member of the Non-commercial Users Constituency, within the multi stakeholder organization of ICANN, I dispute this proposal.

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

See above.

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

See above.

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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

CPE Panelists cannot engage in the research and application of their knowledge. This is undercutting long established order and will squeeze out grooups, tribes and organizations who do not have resources to counter.

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

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

The proposal must be reworked with careful attention to authentic community needs.

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above

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.
No

If no, please explain

see above