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
If no, please explain
No. Subsequent Application Rounds, Page 2. Reword sentence one by replacing “ICANN works towards” with “ICANN anticipates”. Page 2, Paragraph 2. This paragraph should be refined to make it clear that any decision to open or close the new gTLD program requires a board decision and is not within the discretion of the staff. Page 2, last sentence. The word “next” should be inserted before “subsequent round of applications.”
If no, please explain
No. Overarching comment: The section numbering appears to have gone awry, going from 1.1.4 straight to 1.2.3. Section 1 Introduction, Page 2. Background screening should be subject to Bylaws to ensure fairness of the screening process. Section 1.1.4, Page 3. A footnote would provide guidance to the applicant by making reference to the applicant guidebook section which explains the circumstances which would allow for a change in the applying entity. Section 1.2.3, Page 4. The paragraph before “Eligibility Criteria” should not leave so much room for interpretation by stating “In the absence of exceptional circumstances.” This section should to be subject to Bylaws to prevent unfair discrimination against applicants by ICANN. Further, “In the absence of exceptional circumstances” should be deleted entirely as it could open ICANN up to unnecessary Independent Review Processes (IRPs) by individuals trying to prove an exceptional circumstance. Section 1.2.3, Page 5. The second bullet point (twelfth sub-bullet in the section) should make it clear that only a decision by a qualified neutral can disqualify an applicant. The sentence should be preceded with “Decisions by qualified neutrals evidencing systemic or repetitive engagement in cybersquatting…” Section 1.2.3, Page 5. The text in the third bullet point (thirteenth sub-bullet in the section) be amended, as set out hereafter. Mere allegations cannot be sufficient to disqualify an applicant. Only a decision by a recognized neutral can be sufficient to contribute to the disqualification of an applicant. “A final determination by a dispute resolution provider or a court of competent jurisdiction of intellectual property infringement relating to registration or use of a domain name by the applicant or any of the individuals named in the Organizational Account Record respectively, within the last 10 years.” Section 1.2.3, Page 5. The text in Paragraph 2(a) should be amended, as set out hereafter. Mere allegations cannot be sufficient to disqualify an applicant. Only a decision by a recognized neutral can be sufficient to contribute to the disqualification of an applicant. “Confirm that neither the applicant nor any of the individuals named in the Organizational Account Record has been subject to a final determination by a dispute resolution provider or a court of competent jurisdiction of intellectual property infringement relating to registration or use of a domain name within the last ten years. If you are unable to confirm, please provide an explanation.” Section 1.2.3, Page 5. The Applicant Onboarding Questions should also include whether the applicant and individuals or entities named within the Organizational Account have violated the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Policy, or Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRP). Furthermore, the four-year limitation placed on “systemic or repetitive cybersquatting” should be removed because a single decision (even within a four-year period) can contain multiple domain names. Also, a single decision finding multiple instances of cybersquatted domain names, be treated as multiple decisions (of the same number) finding a single instance of a cybersquatted domain name. In addition, the phrase “in which allegations of intellectual property infringement relating to registration or use of a domain name” be amended to add “or allegations of bad faith use and registration of a domain name”. Section 1.2.4., Page 6. This section should be subject to Bylaws to ensure no unfair discrimination by ICANN. Section 1.2.4.1, Page 6. When there is a stable draft of this section, it should be placed for public comments.
If no, please explain
No. Section 1.2, Page 3. In addition to blocked variant strings, reference should also be made to blocked domain names. Section 1.2, Page 4. Reference should also be made to blocked domain names. Section 1.2, Page 4. It is unclear the extent of the String Similarity Review Panel’s discretion to omit some comparisons with the blocked variant strings. There should be reference to the String Similarity Review Guidelines to understand the extent of discretion the panel has to favor an application through omission of comparisons. Section 1.4.9, Page 12. This section needs clarification as it appears the Board is prepared to open the alternative strings options to all applicants. The first sentence ought also to say “…the applied-for .BRAND gTLD string does not pass String Similarity review…”
If no, please explain
No. Section 2.1. The current language leaves room for interpretation. To prevent any uncertainty, there should be a contractual requirement that the registry agreement can only be assigned in conjunction with all sibling registry agreements, and that the strings, if moved to another registry service provider, must be moved as a group. Section 3.4, Page 6. Instead of requiring additional IDN trademark registrations, it may be more effective to utilize the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents in the interpretation of Recommendation 3.16.3.
If no, please explain
No. The first sentence of this section does not set forth the fact that allegation of the bad faith registration of second level domain names is a required element of Section 6.2 of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (TM-PDDRP). Without specific reference to this, the applicant may not understand the nuance of this paragraph.
If no, please explain
No. Section 1.1, Page 2, first sentence. Use of the word “partnerships” renders the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) imprecise as the AGB refers to corporate structures and legal terms. Partnership is not used here as it is legally defined. Deletion of this phrase in its entirety will prevent any confusion. Section 1.2, Page 2. The AGB should make it clear that applicants will not be receiving financial or legal support from ICANN. The first sentence should read, “ICANN will continue to provide support, as defined in this paragraph, for…” Section 1.3, Page 3. The second sentence should read “An ICANN-Accredited registrar will consider whether it will enter into each RRA with the registry operator and support the gTLD by adding it to their product line-up.”
If no, please explain
No. Section 5, Page 4. In relation to “Section xx – challenge mechanisms,” when there is a stable draft of this section, it should be placed for public comments.
If no, please explain
No. The text regarding the definition of “Closed Generics” should be clarified to make it clear that an applicant for a Dot Brand (Under Specification 11) that happens to be a generic term for other goods is not excluded under this definition, as has been the case to date.