If no, please explain

The current AGB language on topic 15 does not make clear when an invoice for the application fee is generated and made available to an applicant. We suggest this is addressed to make things clearer for applicants. However, we understand that the intention may be to make invoices available once an applicant submits their application, with all invoices having to be paid within 7 days of the close of the window. This will have the effect of artificially shortening the application window for many applicants who do not have the ability to pay an invoice through their organization within 7 days. Such applicants would be forced to submit their application early in order to have time to effect payment once they receive the invoice, thus denying them the full allowance of the application window to submit their application. This will create a two-tier application system, penalising larger organizations that frequently have more rigid administrative procedures and so take longer to process invoices. We urge ICANN to ensure that the TAMS system will auto-generate an invoice upon an applicant registering in that system. We also support the comments from the RySG on this topic.

If no, please explain

Section 1: To avoid confusion we believe that the string “Replacement Period” should also be mentioned. We would suggest the following: “Applicants may request changes to many aspects of their application, as described in Section 3. However, it should be noted that, outside of the short string Replacement Period [insert reference], applicants may not change their applied-for string except in cases where the applicant has qualified as a Brand TLD and is in contention (see the Section on Brand Eligibility Evaluation).

If no, please explain

Section 2.1: Greater clarity should be provided as to when the prohibition of certain communications and activities comes into effect. Is this from the opening of the Application Window, the date an applicant submitted their application, Reveal Day, or some other time? Since it has been envisaged that applicants might communicate prior to applying, we would suggest that the appropriate date should be Reveal Day. This section (or section 2.2 on Exceptions) should also make it clear that the prohibition on direct/indirect communication with other applicants, and the prohibition on engaging in third party and/or public communications does not apply to any communications that are required or strongly encouraged, for example, obtaining consent/non-objection from a governmental authority, or engaging with a government as a result of a GAC EW or GAC Advice, or communicating directly or indirectly with an objector as part of the required response/submission to an Objection, or indeed filing one’s own Objection to a third party application in contention.

If no, please explain

Section 1.1. “Affiliate” is a defined term under the RA (and not contained in Spec 9). The defined term should be used, and the definition either repeated here or the relevant section of the Base RA identified and linked-to. Section 1.3.1. Here the defined term Affiliates is being used in I – but not in II. Consistency is required. As referred to above, within this module of the AGB applicants should be either provide with the definition or directed to the relevant section of the Base RA.

If no, please explain

Section 1.3.3: This will need to be updated to include alternative criteria where there is a Brand String Change – along the lines of the language being discussed for the Next Round RA/Spec 13. The criteria set out in 1.3.3 do not exactly match those of Spec 13. We assume that the intent is to provide applicants with an overview, but this runs the risk of creating confusion if an applicant is not aware that they must actually meet the criteria as set out in Spec 13, not as set out here in the AGB. Either this text should exactly mirror Spec 13, or there should be a clear link in this section to Spec 13 and instructions to applicants that the requirements of Spec 13 prevail. For example: • under the definition of the trademark, criteria e and f are missing. • 3b. “Affiliate” is a defined term under the RA (and not contained in Spec 13), which would actually encompass a subsidiary. The defined term should be used, and the definition either repeated here or the relevant section of the Base RA identified and linked-to. • 4. “Trademark Licensees” is a defined term in Spec 13, and this should be used. The references to controlling the DNS records, and to domains being at any level are missing