If no, please explain

Regarding Geographic Names: The RySG notes that the new draft of the AGB has updated text related to complying with a legally binding court order that withdraws a government’s (or public authority’s) support for Geographic TLD. Within Section 6.5.2.1, the RySG requests further clarity on how the timing of the legally binding court order may impact the application result. It is stated in the text that the withdrawal of support during the application process will result in the application failing the Geographic Names Review. It is not contemplated what the outcome will be if support is withdrawn after the Geographic Names Review but before Delegation. It is also not explicitly stated that withdrawal of support during this time must be a legally binding court order. It would be useful to know what the standard of credibility is for a government withdrawing support during this time. It is then stated that “[i]f support is withdrawn through a legally binding court order, the registry operator will no longer have the necessary documentation, and the Registry Transition Processes referred to in the Registry Agreement will be followed.” The procedure described in this text is implied to apply to delegated Geographic TLDs, but it is not explicitly stated. It would be useful to tie these processes and outcomes to specific application statuses or milestones. Regarding DNS Stability: ​​The RySG again suggests two modifications to improve this section of the AGB. First, in order to minimize confusion that could result in the event that the IDNA2008 RFCs are updated while the application window is open, the language referencing these RFCs should include an “as of” date, at least for the purposes of the 2026 application round. The RySG previously submitted a comment to this effect in the previous public comment, but it has not yet been incorporated into the AGB text. Additionally, we suggest that ICANN note the Unicode version being used for validating applied-for strings to provide maximum clarity for applicants. Second, the RySG notes that Section 2.1.8.5 details how a DNS Stability Evaluation challenge may be submitted, addressing our previous concerns. In Section 1.2.14.2, the AGB also states that the results of an Evaluation Challenge will be available within 5 days of challenge submission. The RySG requests that the response time text also be included in Section 2.1.8.5 to have all necessary information related to pre-submission Evaluation Challenges in one place. Regarding Conditional Evaluation Fees: The RySG notes that the newly introduced information regarding the conditional evaluation fee for the Geographic Names Review raises questions and concerns regarding the assessed cost of the Review and the potential impact of the estimated fee on applicants considering applying for a geographic TLD string for non-commercial purposes or to serve geographically limited communities. These concerns were also reflected in the comment submitted by the GeoTLD Group. We recommend that ICANN provide clear guidance on the specific circumstances under which a Geographic Names Review fee will be charged, as well as a transparent explanation of how the fee will be calculated to reflect actual costs. We would like to note that the conditional fees are not aligned with the „New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report“. As stated in the report in Affirmation 1.2: „The Working Group affirms Principle A from the 2007 policy and recommends that the New gTLD Program must continue to be administered „in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable way“. As of now, ICANN has only provided a fee estimate, which creates uncertainty for applicants about the actual fees they need to budget for in their applications. It is also unclear why the conditional fees vary so much compared to the previous application round, which adds to the uncertainty about what applicants should expect. We would appreciate more clarity on which specific tasks are to be performed and will result in conditional fees. Regarding Refunds: The current draft ABG text does not sufficiently describe the Application Fee Refund schedule for Applicant Support Program (ASP) participants. ASP participants may pay between 15% and 25% of the full application fee. If an ASP application withdraws its application, it should be clear within the AGB how much the refund will be. For example, if the full application fee is $227,000 and an ASP applicant pays $56,750 and they both withdraw in the refund window, the regular applicant would receive $147,550. Would the ASP applicant receive $56,750 (their full contribution to the application fee) or $36,887.50 (65% of what they contributed to the application fee)? In a previous public comment, the RySG noted that Implementation Guidance 18.5 states that applicants who apply for a new gTLD that is later not approved because of a high risk of name collision should be granted a full refund, but this refund is set at 65% in the draft AGB. In our view, this does not meet the standard set in the Implementation Guidance. It is also inconsistent with 2.3.3.1.5, which stipulates a full refund for an applicant where a string is eliminated because after the gTLD application is submitted, a successfully evaluated ccTLD is published. In a previous comment, the RySG noted that, while the draft Guidebook language may reflect the original recommendation, the prohibition on private resolution has changed the overall landscape and process for applicants and therefore justifies review and revision. The RySG continues to support the following changes to the current proposed schedule of refunds to ensure a fair process: 1. Applicants that decide to withdraw their applications after string confirmation day should be entitled to a larger refund percentage. In the last round, Applicants were offered a 80% refund if they withdrew at that point, and the RySG believes it would be appropriate to do the same in this round. Although admittedly, not many applicants in the last round withdrew at this point, that may have been due to the fact that private resolution of contention sets allowed flexibility in forming partnerships, joint ventures, or other collaborative arrangements to settle contention sets. However, by prohibiting private resolution, more applicants may opt to withdraw shortly after String Confirmation Day. 2. GAC Early Warnings: In line with the 2012 Round of gTLD application fee refunds, applications that are withdrawn pursuant to a GAC Early Warning and within 21 days of such an Early Warning should receive a refund of 65%. Such withdrawals currently fall under the second refund tranche, i.e., 35%. The RySG firmly believes that GAC Early Warnings for specific strings can introduce uncertainty for an applicant, as they may have significant implications for the operation of the prospective TLD. As a result, this should be an exceptional situation that warrants this higher refund percentage. 3. Community Priority Evaluations: Similar to point 1 above, non-community-based applications that are withdrawn in favor of another application for the same string that prevails under a Community Priority Evaluation should also be eligible to receive a refund of 65% (i.e., eligible for the refund percentage for the current first refund window). Considering the advantages of a community application, and the inability to know if your application will be in a community contention set, even at the time of String Confirmation, losing applicants in a Community Priority Evaluation should be eligible for the 65% refund.

If no, please explain

With regard to Objection Principles (Module 3.5.10) : The RySG would like to understand whether the Dispute Resolution decisions on objections will be binding precedent for the coming rounds.

If no, please explain

The RySG appreciates that the latest version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook provides more clarity about what types of communications between applicants in a contention set are prohibited, and the time period during which that prohibition applies. However, given the concerns we raised in earlier comments around the challenges associated with the prohibition of communications, the RySG suggests that the time period be shortened and that the prohibition apply from Reveal Day until the contention set is resolved. Regarding Community Priority Evaluation, we encourage ICANN Org to take all necessary steps to ensure that CPE Providers that will conduct the evaluation understand the importance and weight of the CPE process, especially the advantage it confers to successful applicants, and that those Providers are sufficiently trained to ensure that applicants are evaluated properly (i.e., that CPE does not result in either “false positives” or “false negatives”).

If no, please explain

On Name Collision, the RySG appreciates the updates made to Section 6.7 of the AGB, particularly ICANN's clarification and consistent terminology in referring to the Initial Assessment Report and Temporary Delegation Report in Sections 6.7.2 and 6.7.3. These changes improve readability and help clarify the process for applicants and other stakeholders. However, we note that the following points still require further clarification: Initial Assessment Execution and Use of Public Comment Feedback: It remains unclear who is responsible for conducting the Initial Assessment and how feedback from the associated Public Comment Period will be utilized. We recommend that ICANN further refine Section 6.7.2 to explicitly state the entity responsible for the assessment and how community input will influence the process. ICANN’s Role in Evaluating High-Risk Mitigation Plans: RySG acknowledges that ICANN has partially addressed our previously raised concern regarding decision-making authority over High-Risk Mitigation Plans. Section 6.7.5.1 now clarifies that ICANN takes the final decision on challenges to mitigation plans. However, Section 6.7.5 does not yet provide sufficient detail about how the Evaluation Panel’s advice is weighed, nor under what circumstances ICANN may diverge from that advice.

If no, please explain

The RySG notes questions 120, 129, 135, and 141 , which require that each applicant certify that they are not applying for a “generic string” as that term is defined in Section 3(d) of Specification 11 of the Base RA. There are no Board-approved recommendations prohibiting applications for generic terms generally. This question should be reworded to require the applicant to acknowledge they are not intending to operate a “closed generic” TLD. As currently written this question would bar applications for any generic terms.

If no, please explain

We recommend that Appendix 2 be updated to include a detailed checklist of requirements and required documentation for the Geographic Names Review. This update should ensure that a Geographic Name application that fulfils the requirements and provides the documentation can pass the review without incurring high additional costs. (See related comment on conditional evaluation fees to Question 2 for further details.)

If no, please explain

The updated version of the AGB provides more clarity about the Predictability Framework, but the flow charts in this section are still somewhat confusing and could benefit from further revision before the final AGB Is published.

If no, please explain

The RySG encourages ICANN to publish a transparency report of any conflicts of interest or violations of the Code of Conduct that may emerge from this applications and evaluation round to aid in the vetting and assessment of Service Providers for future new gTLD evaluations.

If no, please explain

In our previous comment the RySG suggested adjusting Section 12 on Revisions to the Privacy Policy to include a proactive notification of changes to the Privacy Policy, particularly if there are changes subsequent to the initiation of the application window, rather than simply posting revised version of the Policy to a website.

If no, please explain

The RySG notes that some of the changes proposed were not adopted in this final version of the Applicant Guidebook. The RySG is still concerned about clause 9 and the failure to adequately address “changes of control” of the Application. The language states only that the applicant may not resell, assign or transfer the application. It says nothing about the ownership of the Applicant changing. It is true that Clause 9 states that “Applicant agrees to promptly (and in any event within seven (7) days of becoming aware of any fact or circumstance giving rise to such obligation) notify ICANN in writing of any . . .material changes in any information, documents or written materials submitted in connection this Application that could adversely affect the results of the evaluation of this Application” [Emphasis Added]. However: 1. The Underlined portion represents a change in this new version and it creates ambiguity. What if, for example, an Applicant fails to report a change of control because in its view, a change of control would not “adversely affect” the results of the evaluation? It may impact the Application and/or the Applicant, but it may have no bearing on the evaluation results. 2. Earlier in the paragraph, the terms state that any material misrepresentation may cause ICANN to reject this application, but what is the ramification of the misstatement or misrepresentation is found out after the application passes evaluation or after a contract is signed? 3. In addition, the earlier statement about rejecting an application applies only to the original application and any misrepresentations or misstatements. It does not necessarily apply to the assignment of the application or the failure to update ICANN about material changes (including change of control).