Draft Final Report - Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains

Last Updated: 4 September 2009
Date: 
13 February 2007

GNSO new TLDs Committee

Draft Final Report

Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 2

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 7

PRINCIPLES.................................................................................................................. 11

TERM OF REFERENCE ONE: DISCUSSION....................................................... 12

TERM OF REFERENCE TWO: DISCUSSION...................................................... 15

TERM OF REFERENCE THREE: DISCUSSION.................................................. 26

TERM OF REFERENCE FOUR: DISCUSSION..................................................... 29

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES............................................................................. 32

ANNEX ONE - CONSULTATION............................................................................... 34

ANNEX TWO - PARTICIPATION TABLE................................................................ 42

ANNEX FOUR -- REFERENCE MATERIALS......................................................... 50


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary sets out, in a high-level form, the principles, policies and implementation guidelines that the GNSO Council's Committee on the introduction of new top level domains has developed through the policy development process.

Principles:

a) That new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

b) That some new generic top-level domains will be internationalised domain names (IDNs).

c) That the principal objectives of the introduction of new top-level domains are to permit market mechanisms to support useful online identities that permeate international markets as well as to support competition, innovation and consumer choice.

d) That a set of technical criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.

e) That a set of business capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to meets its business ambitions.


Term of Reference One: Policy Recommendation:

Term of Reference 1: Whether to introduce new top level domains
Additional new generic top-level domains should be introduced and work should proceed to enable the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking into account the recommendations found in the following sections

Term of Reference Two: Selection Criteria - String Criteria

i)        Strings should not be confusingly similar to an existing top level domain

ii)      Strings should not infringe the legal rights of others

iii)    Strings should not cause any technical instability

iv)    Strings should not be a Reserved Word[1]

v)      Strings should not be contrary to public policy (as set out in advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee)

TOR 2: Selection Criteria - Applicant Criteria

vi)    Applicants should be able to demonstrate their technical capability

vii)  Applicants should be able to demonstrate their financial and operational capability

TOR 2: Selection Criteria - Process Conditions

viii)There will be a clear and pre-published process using objective and measurable criteria

ix)    There will be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the process

x)      Staff will be used to make preliminary determinations about applications as part of a process which includes the use of expert panels to make decisions

xi)    Dispute resolution and challenge processes will be established prior to the start of the process

Term of Reference Three: Allocation Methods

i)        Applications will be assessed in rounds

ii)      Applications for strings will be published after the closing date

iii)    If there is contention for strings

(1)   Applicants may resolve contention between themselves within a pre-established timeframe

(2)   If there is no mutual agreement, a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention

(3)   The ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels

Term of Reference Four: Policies for Contractual Conditions

                          i.      A base contract will be provided as part of the Request For Proposal

                        ii.      The initial term should be a commercially reasonable length

                      iii.      There should be renewal expectancy

                       iv.      A clear compliance and sanctions process should be set out in the base contract which could lead to contract termination

                         v.      Registries will be required to apply existing Consensus Policies[2] and commit to adopting new Consensus Polices as they are developed

                       vi.      If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines must be followed

                     vii.      Registries will be required to use ICANN accredited registrars

Implementation guidelines:

i)        There will be a cost-recovery based application fee and application fees may differ for applicants

ii)      First come first served within the round for processing order only between rounds and for an ongoing process if applicable

iii)    Applications will be time and date stamped

iv)    The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal

v)      ICANN will promote the opening of the application round

vi)    The application round will close at least thirty days after the start date

vii)  An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within an appropriate timeframe.

viii)The base contract should balance market certainty and flexibility for ICANN to accommodate a rapidly changing market place

ix)    ICANN should take a consistent approach to the establishment of registry fees

x)      The use of personal data is limited to the purpose for which it is collected


INTRODUCTION

1)     This is an updated draft Final Report from the GNSO Council's Committee on the introduction of new top level domains. This version incorporates commentary from the GNSO's public forum on new top level domains held at the ICANN Sao Paulo meeting[3]. The meeting included a further phase in the ongoing consultations with ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy principles for new top level domains[4].

2)     The 14 November 2006 draft Final Report was released in conjunction with the ICANN Staff Discussion Points[5] document that set out a wide range of further questions and commentary on the Committee's draft recommendations. The consultations and negotiations around the impact of the issues raised by ICANN staff have been incorporated into an intensive and ongoing implementation process and are manifest here in an updated set of recommendations which take account of the Committee's response to the staff input.

3)     Additional comments were received on the 14 November 2006 draft Constituencies and observers which are referenced below and which have been incorporated, where possible, into this draft.[6]

4)     The major changes captured in this version of the Report are to re-emphasise the Committee's key principles that reflect ICANN's Mission and Core Values; clarification of the Committee's draft policy recommendations and the further explanation of the Committee's implementation guidelines which are designed to assist ICANN staff to implement the policy recommendations in a transparent and cohesive manner.

5)     The Report sets out the key findings from a multi-phase, multi-stakeholder policy development process that has taken place during 2006 and which will continue through 2007. The Committee have been guided by the GNSO's policy development process requirements which are part of ICANN's ByLaws[7].

6)     In each of the sections below the Committee's recommendations are discussed in more detail with an explanation of the rationale for the decisions. The recommendations have been the subject of numerous public comment periods and intensive discussion across a range of stakeholders including ICANN's GNSO Constituencies, ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees and members of the broader Internet-using public that is interested in ICANN's work[8]. In particular, detailed work has been conducted through the Internationalised Domain Names Working Group (IDN-WG)[9] and the Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG)[10] to comprehensively examine important elements of new TLDs. A working group to examine the protection of the rights of others (PRO-WG) is being formed with a draft statement of work yet to be implemented[11]. Each of these additional groups are due to complete their work prior to ICANN's March 2007 meeting in Portugal.

7)     The GNSO Committee has conducted four separate face-to-face consultations, in Washington DC, Wellington, Brussels and Amsterdam, to discuss each of the Terms of Reference. The final face-to-face meeting of the Committee is due to take place on 22 and 23 February 2007 in Los Angeles. This meeting will confirm the draft policy recommendations, articulate proposed implementation plans from ICANN operational and legal staff and finalise the next steps of the policy development process through June 2007.

8)     In addressing the Terms of Reference, very close attention has been paid to mapping the discussion and the resulting recommendations to ICANN's Bylaws, Mission and Core Values. A full list of all the Constituency Statements, copies of the responses to Calls for Expert Papers and the Public Comment archives can be found in the GNSO's section of the ICANN website at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-pdp-input.htm.

9)     This Report reflects another stage in the ICANN's progress towards introducing new top-level domains. The history of the introduction of new TLDs, most notably during 2000 and then again in 2003-2004, is found on ICANN's background information section on the top-level domains (http://www.icann.org/topics/gtld-strategy-areaa.html.


PRINCIPLES



The following principles have guided the work of the GNSO Committee on the introduction of new top-level domains in accordance with the Terms of Reference set by the GNSO, with reference to ICANN's Mission and Core Values.

a) That new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

b) That some new generic top-level domains will be internationalised domain names (IDNs).

c) That the principal objectives of the introduction of new top-level domains are to permit market mechanisms to support useful online identities that permeate international markets as well as to support competition, innovation and consumer choice.

d) That a set of technical criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.

e) That a set of business capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to meets its business ambitions.


TERM OF REFERENCE ONE: DISCUSSION

Whether to introduce new top-level domains

Additional new generic top-level domains should be introduced and work should proceed to enable the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking into account the recommendations found in the following sections.

1.      This section sets out the way in which the Committee arrived at their Recommendation to proceed with the introduction new top-level domains.

2.      ICANN's policy development process is a multi-stage process that includes the production of an Issues Report (found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/gnso-issues-rpt-gtlds-05dec05.pdf). The Issues Report included comprehensive information about the main documents and decisions on new top-level domains since the 2000 round of new top-levels domains which included, for example, .biz, .info, and the 2004 round of sponsored top-level domains which included, for example, .cat and .asia. In addition, the process for the re-bids of the .net and .org agreements was used to inform the Report.

3.      A full compilation of all the materials the Committee used is found in the Reference Materials section at the end of the document. In particular, the Committee used the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The Report (http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/final-report-31jul02.htm) described four aspects to evaluate including technical, business, legal and process that have, subsequently, informed the development of all the Recommendations within the Report.

4.      In its request to the ICANN staff to produce an Issues Report, the Committee also made a request to produce a background report on internationalised domain names (IDNs). This work is now reflected in the progress of the IDN-WG in its discussions on internationalised domain names in the context of the introduction of new top-level domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/idn_tor_draft-12oct06.htm). The broad body of work on internationalised domain names taking place within, for example, the President's Committee on IDNs (http://www.icann.org/committees/idnpac/), the IETF (http://www.ietf.org/) and other technical organisations has been taken into account when developing the Recommendations contained here. A joint ccNSO and GAC IDN Working Group[12] has been formed and a GAC IDN Working Group is also examining IDN issues as they relate to governments[13]. The ICANN Board, at the Sao Paulo meeting, urged the various working groups to continue their efforts and to collaborate as closely as possible[14].

5.      The outcomes of the February 2006 meeting in Washington DC were the key determinants of the recommendation to proceed with establishing a permanent policy for and method of accepting applications for new TLDs.

6.      There were some strong themes to support a decision to enable the introduction of new TLDs. These included the facilitation of a competitive environment for registry services; a "public choice" benefit for end users and the potential for expansion of innovative Internet use in a wide variety of markets that have may have been underserved in the past. A summary of the discussion on whether to introduce new top-level domains can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00026.html. In addition, the respondents to the Call for Papers set out a variety of arguments to support the introduction of new TLDs.

7.      After a day of detailed discussions and presentations from eight external stakeholders and in considering Constituency Statements and Public Comments, there was rough consensus that the Committee should proceed with consideration of the other three Terms of Reference[15].

8.      At the 31 March 2006 ICANN Board meeting in Wellington, the Board made clear its intention to proceed with the introduction of new top-level domains[16]. The Board reaffirmed its commitment to introducing new top-level domain registries at its 30 June 2006 meeting in Marrakech[17].

9.      The general principle underpinning the wide ranging discussions was that, whatever consensus policy was developed, it must be consistent with ICANN's limited technical co-ordination mission and align with ICANN's Mission and Core Values[18].


TERM OF REFERENCE TWO: DISCUSSION

1.      This section sets the results of the discussion about the draft policy recommendations for selection criteria for new top level domains[19]. There are three main elements of the selection criteria including "string" criteria, "applicant" criteria and "process" criteria. The following sections simplify the policy recommendations and shift some previous recommendations to more appropriate sections such as contractual conditions or implementation guidelines. The recommendations have been re-numbered to reflect substantial changes to the ordering and positioning of the previous set of draft recommendations.

2.      Selection Criteria - "Strings":

                                                              i.      Strings should not be confusingly similar to an existing top level domain

                                                            ii.      Strings should not infringe the legal rights of others

                                                          iii.      Strings should not cause technical instability

                                                           iv.      Strings should not be a reserved word

                                                             v.      Strings should not be contrary to public policy principles (as set out in the Governmental Advisory Committee's draft set of principles)

3.      Selection Criteria - "Applicants"

                                                              i.      Applicants should be able to demonstrate their technical capability

                                                            ii.      Applicants should be able to demonstrate their financial and operational capability

4.      Selection Criteria - "Process"

                                                              i.      There will be a clear and pre-published process using objective and measurable criteria

                                                            ii.      There will be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the process

                                                          iii.      Staff will be used to make preliminary determinations about applications as part of a process which includes the use of expert panels

                                                           iv.      Dispute resolution and challenge processes will be established prior to the start of the process

5.      The Committee decided that the "process" criteria for introducing new top-level domains would follow a pre-published application system including the levying of an application fee to recover the costs of the application process. This is consistent with ICANN's approach to the introduction of new TLDs in the previous 2000 and 2004 round for new top level domains.

6.      The Committee decided that application fees should be set at the start of the process and application materials would be made available prior to any application cycle. The Committee agreed that the cost to evaluate individual applications may differ depending on the stages of the application evaluation process that the applicant reached. Therefore, different fees may be levied depending on what stage in the process the application reaches. This approach is explained in more detail in the implementation guidelines and in the ICANN staff-developed draft implementation plan which addressed the Committee's proposed recommendations. This plan is under ongoing development by an internal team including operational, legal, policy and technical staff. It is proposed to present a high level implementation plan to the Committee at the Los Angeles meetings to enable Committee members to see, in a practical form, how the ICANN Staff Discussion Points document, the input from the Sao Paulo meeting and the ongoing internal implementation planning have addressed the Committee's policy recommendations and broader guidance.

7.      The Committee agreed that the technical requirements for applicants would include compliance with a minimum set of technical standards and that this requirement would be part of the new registry operator's contractual conditions included in the proposed base contract. The more detailed discussion about technical requirements has been moved to the contractual conditions section.

8.      The Committee engaged in detailed discussion of the string requirements which have now been simplified, after reference to the Staff Discussion Points and to external experts who have provided their input into the processs. ICANN would, to implement the policy, develop an implementation plan that included staff being able to make preliminary determinations on whether the application complies with the string requirements and that ICANN may engage appropriate expert advice in order to make a determinations about string contention.

9.      It was clear from Committee discussions and from staff input that ICANN would continue to conduct public comment processes including input from the full range of ICANN Advisory Committees.

10. The following sections deal specifically with "string" criteria and include the results of intensive discussion about what kinds of string criteria were appropriate, practical to implement and which reasonably balanced divergent Constituency interests. For example, the NCUC argued in its December 2006 comments on the 14 November 2006 draft that the "proposal is [also] fundamentally flawed in that it falsely assumes there is a [sic] agreed-upon global standard of morality, religion, or expression that can be imposed on the entire world through ICANN policy. The draft recommendations would be practically impossible to enforce due to this fundamental…premise in the proposed policy." After detailed discussion about the intent of the recommendation, study of the draft GAC public policy principles and the commitment to using already existing bodies of well-established international law, ICANN staff have proposed an implementation process which addresses and balances the views of a wide range of participants.

11. The Committee agreed that strings should not be visually confusingly similar to an existing TLD string and that the string did not infringe the legal rights of others, as set out in recognised international law. This proposal is consistent with the current requirements of Registered Name Holders in the existing gTLD Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see Clause 3.7.7.9).

12. The concept of "confusingly similar" is used to mean that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public. The prospect of IDN new TLD applications makes this criterion vital. There is broad agreement in international and national law the concept of "confusingly similar". In international trade mark law, confusion may be visual, phonetic or conceptual but the recommendation here is limited to visual confusion.

13. In broader international law, the concept of creating confusion is contained in the 1883 Paris Convention and says "to create confusion by any means whatever" {Article 10bis (3) (1} and, further, being "liable to mislead the public" {Article 10bis (3) (3)}. The treatment of confusingly similar is also contained in European Union law and is structured as follows -- "because of its identity with or similarity to…there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public…; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association…" {Article 4 (1) (b) of the 1988 EU Trade Mark directive 89/104/EEC}. Article 8 (1) (b) of the 1993 European Union Trade Mark regulation 40/94 is also relevant.

14. In the United States, existing trade mark law states that "…to the best of the verifier's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive…" which is contained in Section 1051 (3) (d) of the US Trademark Act 2005 (found at http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1051.html.)

15. In Australia, the Australian Trade Marks Act 1995 Section 119 says that "…For the purposes of this Act, a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trade mark if it so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion" (found at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/resources/legislation_index.shtml)

16. The European Union Trade Mark Office provides guidance on how to interpret confusion. "…confusion may be visual, phonetic or conceptual. A mere aural similarity may create a likelihood of confusion. A mere visual similarity may create a likelihood of confusion. Confusion is based on the fact that the relevant public does not tend to analyse a word in detail but pays more attention to the distinctive and dominant components. Similarities are more significant than dissimilarities. The visual comparison is based on an analysis of the number and sequence of the letters, the number of words and the structure of the signs. Further particularities may be of relevance, such as the existence of special letters or accents that may be perceived as an indication of a specific language. For words, the visual comparison coincides with the phonetic comparison unless in the relevant language the word is not pronounced as it is written. It should be assumed that the relevant public is either unfamiliar with that foreign language, or even if it understands the meaning in that foreign language, will still tend to pronounce it in accordance with the phonetic rules of their native language. The length of a name may influence the effect of differences. The shorter a name, the more easily the public is able to perceive all its single elements. Thus, small differences may frequently lead in short words to a different overall impression. In contrast, the public is less aware of differences between long names. The overall phonetic impression is particularly influenced by the number and sequence of syllables." (found at http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/direc.htm).

17. An extract from the United Kingdom's Trade Mark Office's Examiner's Guidance Manual is useful in explaining further the Committee's approach to developing its Recommendation. "For likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that confusion will arise in the mind of the average consumer. Likelihood of association is not an alternative to likelihood of confusion, "but serves to define its scope". Mere association, in the sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion, unless the average consumer, in bringing the earlier mark to mind, is led to expect the goods or services of both marks to be under the control of one single trade source. "The risk that the public might believe that the goods/services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion…". (found at http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-decisionmaking/t-law/t-law-manual.htm)

18. The IPC, in its 20 December 2006 additional comments, "believes there must be some mechanism to challenge to eligibility for consideration of strings that are confusingly similar to trademarks". The proposed implementation plan deals with a comprehensive range of potentially controversial (for whatever reason) string applications which balances the need for reasonable protection of existing legal rights and the capacity to innovate with new uses for top level domains that may be attractive to a wide range of users.

19. It was agreed by the Committee that the string should not cause any technical issues that threatened the stability and security of the Internet. As the policy development process proceeds, further detailed technical assistance will be sought from both ICANN expert committees and advisors.

20. There was detailed discussion about a general category of potential strings which may have public policy impacts of interest to national governments. In response to correspondence from the GNSO Council Chair, the Governmental Advisory Committee[20] have responded to a request to provide guidance on public policy issues. The 17 October 2006 draft is found in full at Annex Three. It is expected that these principles will be finalised at the ICANN meeting in March 2007. After those guidelines are formalised, the ICANN staff proposed implementation plan may be modified to take into account ways to address the public policy concerns of governments in relation to the introduction of new top level domains.

21. The Committee discussed proposed text to address the concerns of governments that was based on existing international law with respect to strings that may be contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality or be of such a nature to deceive the public.

22. The Committee spent considerable time considering the public policy aspects of new top-level domains[21]. In particular, concerns about "public policy and morality" were raised. This phrasing is consistent with international laws including Article 3 (1) (f) of the 1988 European Union Trade Mark Directive 89/104/EEC and within Article 7 (1) (f) of the 1993 European Union Trade Mark Regulation 40/94. In addition, the phrasing "contrary to morality or public order and in particular of such a nature as to deceive the public" comes from Article 6quinques (B)(3) of the 1883 Paris Convention. The reference to the Paris Convention remains relevant to domain names even though, when it was drafted, domain names were completely unheard of.

23. The concept of "morality" is captured in Article 19 United Nations Convention on Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) says "…Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 29 continues by saying that "…In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society".

24. The EU Trade Mark Office's Examiner's guidelines provides assistance on how to interpret morality and deceit. "…Contrary to morality or public order. Words or images which are offensive, such as swear words or racially derogatory images, or which are blasphemous are not acceptable. There is a dividing line between this and words which might be considered in poor taste. The latter do not offend against this provision." The further element is deception of the public which is treated in the following way. "…Deceive the public. To deceive the public, is for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin. For example, a word may give rise to a real expectation of a particular locality which is untrue." For more information, see Sections 8.7 and 8.8 at http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/marque/direc.htm

25. The UK Trade Mark office provides similar guidance in its Examiner's Guidance Manual. "Marks which offend fall broadly into three types: those with criminal connotations, those with religious connotations and explicit/taboo signs. Marks offending public policy are likely to offend accepted principles of morality, e.g. illegal drug terminology, although the question of public policy may not arise against marks offending accepted principles of morality, for example, taboo swear words. If a mark is merely distasteful, an objection is unlikely to be justified, whereas if it would cause outrage or would be likely significantly to undermine religious, family or social values, then an objection will be appropriate. Offence may be caused on matters of race, sex, religious belief or general matters of taste and decency. Care should be taken when words have a religious significance and which may provoke greater offence than mere distaste, or even outrage, if used to parody a religion or its values. Where a sign has a very sacred status to members of a religion, mere use may be enough to cause outrage." For more information, see http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-decisionmaking/t-law/t-law-manual.htm)

26. Detailed discussion was conducted about application process dispute resolution process as part of the original string criteria discussion. This text has been moved to the implementation guidelines section found below.

27. In summary, the development of selection criteria for new top-level domains has been the subject of intense discussion throughout the Committee's work. This work has now been clarified and simplified and further guidance will be sought at the Los Angeles meetings on any outstanding questions from either the Committee or ICANN staff.


TERM OF REFERENCE THREE: DISCUSSION

1.      Allocation methods for new top level domains have been the subject of detailed discussion within the Committee and with ICANN operational staff. The draft recommendations have been distilled into the following key areas, some of which require further clarification from the Committee:

                                                              i.      Applications will be assessed in rounds, in the first instance

                                                            ii.      Applications for strings will be published after the closing date

                                                          iii.      If there is contention for strings

1.      Applicants may resolve contention between themselves within a pre-established timeframe

2.      If there is no mutual agreement, a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention

3.      The ICANN Board may be required make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels

2.      The development of recommendations for allocation methods was conducted in the same way as that for selection criteria. The comprehensive discussion about allocation methods has taken place through analysis of the formal Constituency Statements; public comments and email discussions which were used to modify and clarify the language of the Recommendations.

3.      Comparative evaluations have been a consistent theme throughout the policy development process with some discussants suggesting that auctions were a more suitable method of resolving conflict between applicants with similar string ideas. On balance, a comparative evaluation system will be used to analyse all applications and, where there is string contention between applicants for the same string, a different process may be necessary.

4.      ICANN staff have received some detailed advice about the utility and practicality of using auctions to resolve string contention at particular points in the application process. The key features of auctions[22] are, properly designed, they are objective and stand up well to challenge; they are administratively efficient; they assign resources to the highest valued use and they generate revenue.

5.      The draft Recommendations recognize past experiences with comparative evaluations in the ICANN environment, particularly those relating to sponsored top-level domains where measures of "community" support needed to be determined. The evaluations, for example in the case of the .net and .org rebids and the introduction of new sTLDs like .jobs and .travel, show that the Internet-using community takes a keen interest in ICANN's decision making process. In addition, ICANN's Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees outside the GNSO play a key role in determining the success of potential applications.

6.      Further discussion within the Committee is necessary to confirm its draft Recommendations and to ensure that the implementation plan includes clear instructions to applicants about how strong contention between them (if they are applying for the same string) can be resolved.


TERM OF REFERENCE FOUR: DISCUSSION

1.      Policies for Contractual Conditions - Summary

                                                              i.      A base contract will be provided as part of the Request For Proposal

                                                            ii.      The initial term should be a commercially reasonable length

                                                          iii.      There should be renewal expectancy

                                                           iv.      A clear compliance and sanctions process should be set out in the base contract

                                                             v.      Registries will be required to apply existing Consensus Policies[23] and commit to adopting new Consensus Polices as they are developed

                                                           vi.      If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines must be followed

                                                         vii.      Registries will be required to use ICANN accredited Registrars

1.      This section sets out the discussion of the policies for contractual conditions for new top level domain registry operators.

2.      The recommendations were developed through the Brussels and Amsterdam face-to-face consultations. The Committee has focused on the key principles of consistency, openness and transparency. It was also determined that a scalable and predictable process is consistent with industry best practice standards for services procurement. The Committee referred in particular to standards within the broadcasting, telecommunications and Internet services industries to examine how regulatory agencies in those environments conducted, for example, spectrum auctions, broadcasting licence distribution and media ownership frameworks.

3.      The Committee found a number of expert reports[24] beneficial. In particular, the World Bank report on mobile licensing conditions provides some guidance on best practice principles for considering broader market investment conditions. "…A major challenge facing regulators in developed and developing countries alike is the need to strike the right balance between ensuring certainty for market players and preserving flexibility of the regulatory process to accommodate the rapidly changing market, technological and policy conditions. As much as possible, policy makers and regulators should strive to promote investors' confidence and give incentives for long-term investment. They can do this by favoring the principle of 'renewal expectancy', but also by promoting regulatory certainty and predictability through a fair, transparent and participatory renewal process. For example, by providing details for license renewal or reissue, clearly establishing what is the discretion offered to the licensing body, or ensuring sufficient lead-times and transitional arrangements in the event of non-renewal or changes in licensing conditions. Public consultation procedures and guaranteeing the right to appeal regulatory decisions maximizes the prospects for a successful renewal process. As technological changes and convergence and technologically neutral approaches gain importance, regulators and policy makers need to be ready to adapt and evolve licensing procedures and practices to the new environment."

4.      The Recommendations which the Committee have developed with respect to the introduction of new TLDs are consistent with the World Bank principles.


IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

1)     At the Sao Paulo meeting, it became clear that some of the Committee's recommendations could more properly be termed "implementation guidelines" designed to assist ICANN staff with implementation of the formal policy recommendations.

2)     These guidelines are consistent with ICANN's openness and transparency requirements[25].

                                                              i.      There will be a cost-recovery based application fee and application fees may differ for applicants

                                                            ii.      First come first served within the round for processing order only between rounds and for an ongoing process if applicable

                                                          iii.      Applications will be time and date stamped

                                                           iv.      The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal

                                                             v.      ICANN will promote the opening of the application round

                                                           vi.      The application round will close at least thirty days after the start date

                                                         vii.      An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within an appropriate timeframe.

                                                       viii.      The base contract should balance market certainty and flexibility for ICANN to accommodate a rapidly changing market place

                                                           ix.      ICANN should take a consistent approach to the establishment of registry fees

                                                             x.      The use of personal data is limited to the purpose for which it is collected


ANNEX ONE - CONSULTATION

1.      This section provides an overview of the progress of the policy development process and the documentation produced throughout the series of teleconferences and face-to-face consultations that have taken place during 2006. All of the meetings were open to observers and many different stakeholders attended the meetings taking an active part in the discussion. In addition, all meetings were open to remote participation by teleconference and through the use of the Shinkuro (www.shinkuro.com) file-sharing technology. A full table found at Annex One illustrates participation by GNSO Constituencies and other observers.

2.      The Issues Report was released on 5 December 2005. The Report sets out an early collation of issues that the GNSO wished to take into account in developing the Terms of Reference for future rounds. For example, the selection criteria used in previous application rounds for new top-level domains were used to guide the development of Term of Reference Two in this PDP. An evaluation of the selection criteria and methods used in the re-bidding of the .org and .net registry contracts was also conducted. The Issues Report contained Staff Recommendations about potential terms of reference and, in the majority, those Recommendations were adopted by the GNSO Council. The Report is found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/gnso-issues-rpt-gtlds-05dec05.pdf.

3.      A Public Comment Period was launched on 6 December 2005 to solicit input from the ICANN community about the proposed Terms of Reference (found at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm). The Public Comment Period ran until 31 January 2006. For this PDP public comment periods have been used in different ways than in the past. In general, public comment calls have been far more targeted and highly structured to get responses on particular areas of concern to the Committee. This was a successful initiative enabling information to be collected in a consistent way that improved the quality of subsequent Reports. The archive of comments can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-pdp-comments/).

4.      In addition to a Public Comment Period, a Call for Expert Papers was announced on 3 January 2006 (found at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm). The request for input was advertised widely in the international press and yielded eleven responses from a diverse range of stakeholders. The authors of the papers were invited to present their papers and participate in a question and answer session at the 23 - 25 February 2006 Washington meeting. A full listing of all the inputs, including the Expert Papers, can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-pdp-input.htm.

5.      The ICANN Board has been regularly updated on the progress of and taken a keen interest in the work of the new TLDs Committee. For example, the Board meeting of 10 January 2006 shows discussion within the Board about its involvement in new TLDs policy development process (found at http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-10jan06.htm)

6.      A draft Initial Report was released on 19 February 2006 (found at http://icann.org/topics/gnso-initial-rpt-new-gtlds-19feb06.pdf) and a request for public comments was announced at the same time that was open between 20 February 2006 and 13 March 2006. The archives for those comments are found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-pdp-initial-report/. The draft Initial Report was used to facilitate discussion at subsequent Committee meetings and to give some guide to the broader community about the Committee's progress in its early stages.

7.      The GNSO's new TLDs Committee held a three day meeting in Washington DC between 23 and 25 February 2006. The meeting notes can be found on the GNSO's Committee archive at (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00030.html). A central element of the discussion focused on re-visiting ICANN's Mission and Core Values to ensure that the deliberations on the Terms of Reference were tightly constrained. The substantive discussion over the three-day meeting also included discussion on whether to introduce new top-level domains (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00027.html) and potential selection criteria which could be used in a new round of top-level domain applications (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00026.html).

8.      Analysis of the lessons learned from previous TLD rounds was included in the broader discussions held in Washington DC (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00030.html). In addition to discussing general selection criteria, detailed discussion of technical requirements also took place (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00028.html). Following the Washington meetings, it was clear that further information about technical criteria was necessary to inform the Committee's work. On 15 March 2006 a formal call was made for additional information on technical criteria (found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/tech-criteria-15mar06.htm). No responses were received to that specific call but, in the resulting recommendations, particular attention has been paid to addressing relevant technical standards across the full range of registry operations, including those that relate to Internationalised Domain Names.

9.      In response to the Committee's work and to discussions at the March 2006 Wellington meeting, the Board indicated its intention to facilitate the implementation of new top-level domains (found at http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-31mar06.htm.)

10. The new TLDs Committee met in Brussels between 11 and 13 May 2006 to discuss, in further detail, the work that had been undertaken on refining the selection criteria and allocation methods. In addition, a full day was spent on discussing policies for contractual conditions with a special presentation from ICANN's Deputy General Counsel. The Committee has archived, on 18 May 2006, records of the Brussels discussion and output from the meeting can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00133.html

11. At the Brussels meeting, a revised work plan was devised (found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00130.html) which include a high level commitment to producing an Initial Report in time for discussion at ICANN's June 2006 Marrakech meeting.

12. A draft Initial Report was released on 15 June 2006 (found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/issues-report-15jun06.pdf) and further discussion took place on the Committee's mailing list prior to the Marrakech meeting.

13. The ICANN Board meeting of 30 June 2006 showed, again, the Board's interest in facilitating the policy development process on new top-level domains, particularly in encouraging ongoing discussions with the GAC. (found at http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-30jun06.htm). After inputs from the Marrakech meeting a final version of the Initial Report was released on 28 July 2006 (found at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm).

14. The Committee conducted another set of face-to-face consultations in Amsterdam between 29 and 31 August 2006 to further refine the Committee's findings and to develop a set of draft Recommendations. Prior to the Amsterdam meeting, a comprehensive public comment period was conducted. These public comments (found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00189.html) were used as working materials for the Committee to consider, in addition to Constituency Statements, the previous set of Expert Papers and comprehensive commentary for a wide variety of observers to the meetings.

15. The Committee met with the GAC on two occasions during the course of the consultations - in Wellington and again in Marrakech - where progress on the Committee's work was shared with GAC members.

16. The most important aspects of the discussion were further clarification about:

a.      string differentiation (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00190.html);

b.      proposed requirements to provide an operational plan (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00191.html)

c.      treatment of application fees (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00194.html)

d.      allocation methods (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00202.html); and

e.      string checking (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00203.html)

17. Considering all the materials derived from the face-to-face meetings, discussions on email lists, expert materials and expert papers, on 14 September 2006 a set of draft Recommendations was released by the Committee for broader consideration (found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/recom-summary-14sep06.htm).

18. Between 14 September and 5 October 2006 email discussion took place that improved and clarified the language of the Recommendations and ensured that Constituencies had sufficient time to rework their recommendations where necessary.

19. On 5 October 2006, the Committee conducted a two hour teleconference to discuss the draft Recommendations (the MP3 recording can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00224.html)/. The purpose of the meeting was to confirm that the Recommendations reflected the intentions of the Committee and to conduct further work on refining elements of the Recommendations, particularly with respect to the selection criteria and allocation methods to resolve contention between string applications.

20. On 11 October 2006, the GNSO Committee Chairman and GNSO Chair, Dr Bruce Tonkin, sent formal correspondence to the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Chair of GAC Working Group I, requesting the GAC's assistance with the public policy impacts of the introduction of new TLDs (found at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02891.html).

21. Based on the substantive nature of the Committee's email traffic on the draft Recommendations, a further update was released to the Committee on 18 October 2006 (found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00234.html) for consideration whilst the drafting of the Final Report takes place.



ANNEX TWO - PARTICIPATION TABLE

UPDATE TO BE INSERTED

Legend:

a = absent

aa = absent apologies

na = not available - one constituency member funded or other conflict

rp = remote participation

NEW TLDs COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Brussels

TC

Amsterdam

TC

NAME

24 & 25 Feb 06

Washington DC

25 Mar 06

Wellington, NZ

26 Mar 06

Wellington, NZ

11 May 06

12 May 06

13 May 06

15 Jun 06

29 Aug

06

30 Aug 06

31 Aug 06

5 Oct 06

CBUC

Marilyn Cade

x

x

x

x

x

x

aa

x

x

x

x

Philip Shepherd

a

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Alistair Dixon

rp

x

rp

rp

x

na

rp

na

aa

Grant Forsyth

rp

x

ISPC

Tony Holmes

rp

x

x

na

na

na

aa

x

x

x

aa

Tony Harris

a

x

x

x

x

x

x

na

na

na

x

Greg Ruth

rp

x

na

na

na

x

rp

rp

aa

Mark McFadden

x

Maggie Mansourkia

x

IPC

Lucy Nichols

x

a

x

x

x

aa

na

na

na

aa

Ute Decker

a

a

x

x

x

aa

x

x

x

x

Kiyoshi Tsuru

x

x

x

na

na

na

a

na

na

na

Steve Metalitz

x

NCUC

Robin Gross

na

x

x

na

na

na

x

na

na

na

Mawaki Chango

x

a

x

x

x

a

x

x

x

a

Norbert Klein

na

x

x

na

na

na

a

na

na

na

aa

Registrars

Bruce Tonkin

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ross Rader

x

x

x

na

na

na

a

na

na

na

aa

Tom Keller

na

a

na

na

na

a

x

x

x

Registry

Cary Karp

na

x

x

na

na

na

x

na

na

x

x

Ken Stubbs

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

June Seo

x

x

na

na

na

a

rp

Nominating Committee

Avri Doria

rp

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sophia Bekele

x

x

x

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Maureen Cubberley

rp

x

x

na

na

na

rp

rp

rp

aa

ALAC

Bret Fausett

rp

x

rp

rp

rp

x

x

x

x

GAC

Suzanne Sene

x

Observers

Marcus Faure

x

x

x

Chuck Gomes

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Werner Staub

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ray Fassett

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Elmar Knipp

x

x

x

David Maher

x

x

x

Kristina Rosette

x

Matthew Embrescia

x

x

Danny Younger

x

Dirk Kirschenowski

rp

x

x

x

x

x

x

Alexander Schubert

x

x

x

x

x

X

Jon Nevett

x

x

x

x

x

Philip Grabensee

x

x

x

M. M-Schönherr

x

x

x

Becky Burr

x

x

Keith Drazak

x

x

x

Sebastien Bachelot

x

x

Staff

Liz Williams

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Glen de Saint Gery

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Dan Halloran

x

x

x

x

x

x

Kurt Pritz

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Donna Austin

x

Craig Schwartz

x

x

x

x

Maria Farrell

x

x

x

x

Tina Dam

x

x

x

x

Denise Michel

x



ANNEX FOUR -- REFERENCE MATERIALS


Davis and Holt, Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1993. (Materials for auction models is also available at the University of Haifa website http://www.gsb.haifa.ac.il)

DNJournal, Global TLD Registrations Pass 50 Million as New Users Stream

Online. July 30 2005. On line version at http://dnjournal.com/columns/50million.htm.

Guermazi, Boutheina and Isabel Neto, Mobile License Renewal: What are the issues? What is at stake?, available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/09/23

/000016406_20050923113019/Rendered/PDF/wps3729.pdf

Johnson, David and Susan Crawford, Old Delusions and new TLDs, comments submitted 13 November 2002 as part of ICANN Amsterdam meeting topic (http://www.icann.org/amsterdam/gtld­action­plan­topic.htm).

On line version available at http://forum.icann.org/gtld­plan­comments/general/msg00003.html.

Johnson, David and Susan Crawford, A Concrete "Thin Contract Proposal,

submitted 23 August 2003 as comments on new TLD contracts. On line version including proposed draft contract available at http://forum.icann.org/mtg­ cmts/stld­rfp­comments/general/msg00039.html.

Klemperer, Paul. Auctions: Theory and Practice. The Toulouse Lectures in Economics. (2004). http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/klemperer/VirtualBook/VirtualBookCoverSheet.asp

Klensin, John, RFC 3071 (Reflections on the DNS, RFC 1591, and Categories of Domains). 2001. On line version at http://rfc.net/rfc3071.html.

Klensin, John, RFC 3467 (Role of the Domain Name System). 2003. On line

version at http://rfc.net/rfc3467.html.

Mannheim, Karl and Lawrence Solum. "The Case for gTLD Auctions." Research Paper #2003-11, Loyola Law School. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=515183

Matsui, Masayuki, Comparing Domain Name Administration in OECD Countries, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/38/2505946.pdf

Mueller, Milton and Lee McKnight. "The Post-.com Internet: Toward Regular and Objective Procedures for Internet Governance." Telecommunications Policy 28 (7/8), 487-502 (2004) http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/NewTLDs2-MM-LM.pdf

National Research Council, Signposts in Cyberspace: The Domain Name

System and Internet Navigation, Committee on Internet Navigation and the

Domain Name System: Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications;

Washington, DC: 2005. ISBN: 0­309­09640­5. Executive summary found at http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11258.pdf ).

Paltridge, Sam and Masayuki Matsui, Generic Top-level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues, Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies. Paris: 2004.

DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)/2Final. On line version at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/34/32996948.pdf

Perset, Karin and Dimitri Ypsilanti, The Secondary Market for Domain Names, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/45/36471569.pdf

Summit Strategies International, Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues, August 2004. On line version at http://icann.org/tlds/new­gtld­eval­ 31aug04.pdf. On line version of presentation at ICANN's Rome meeting http://www.icann.org/presentations/sapiro­forum­rome­04mar04.pdf.

VeriSign, The Domain Name Industry Brief, Volume 2, Issue 2, May 2005. On

line version at

http://www.verisign.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsletter/030725.pdf

World Intellectual Property Organisation, New Generic Top­Level Domains:

Intellectual Property Considerations, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center,

2004. On line version at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/reports/newgtld­

ip/index.html.

ICANN Links

For a full listing of all inputs including Constituency Statements, Public Comment archives and Expert Papers, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-pdp-input.htm.

GNSO gTLDs Committee Final Report on New gTLDs, May­ June 2003

9 May, v4: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030509.gTLDs­committee­conclusions­v4.html

21 May, v5: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030521.gTLDs­committee­conclusions­v5.html

02 Jun, v6: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030602.gTLDs­committee­conclusions­v6.html

12 Jun, v7: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs­committee­conclusions­v7­1.html

IANA Listing of all TLDs

http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds­alpha­

by­domain.txt.

List of Registry Agreements http://www.icann.ORG/registries/agreements.htm



[1] Reserved Word has a specific meaning in the ICANN context and includes, for example, the reserved word provisions in ICANN's existing registry contracts. See http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm.

[2] Consensus Policies has a particular meaning within the ICANN environment. Refer to http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm for the full list of ICANN's Consensus Policies.

[3] The GNSO Council Chair's presentation to the Forum can be found at http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/tonkin-gtld-sp-04dec06.pdf

[4] The GAC's new TLDs representative made a presentation on the GAC's progress on developing public policy principles for new TLDs (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gac-gnso-newtlds-07dec06.pdf) and a draft of the public policy principles document as discussed (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00307.html).

[5] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-StaffMemo-14Nov06.pdf

[6] The Non-Commercial Users' Constituency (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00325.html) provided these comments in December 2006 and are planning to provide amended text for the Report; the Intellectual Property Constituency (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00323.html), the Business Constituency (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00308.html) and comments from Chuck Gomes (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00303.html).

[7] http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA.

[8] A full list of the working materials of the new TLDs Committee can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/.

[9] The mailing list archive for the IDN-WG is found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/. A full set of resources which the WG is using is found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/.

[10] The mailing list archive for the RN-WG is found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rn-wg/

[11] http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03197.html

[12] A presentation by ccNSO representative Hiro Hotta was made at the Sao Paulo meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/hotta-idn-sp-07dec06.pdf)

[13] The GAC December 2006 Sao Paulo communiqué refers to the GAC's interest in IDNs (http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac26com.pdf).

[14] ICANN Board resolution December 2006 (http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-08dec06.htm#_Toc27198296).

[16] See Board resolution at http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-31mar06.html.

[18] (http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#I)

[19] This presentation was used by the GNSO Committee on new TLDs at GNSO public forum (http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/tonkin-gtld-sp-04dec06.pdf)

[20] http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/advice-new-gtlds-20nov06.pdf.

[21] The GAC has provided a draft version of its proposed public policy principles relating to new top level domains.

[22] Committee members can refer to a wide range of materials on auctions but the following references may prove most useful.

Klemperer, Paul. Auctions: Theory and Practice. The Toulouse Lectures in Economics. (2004). http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/klemperer/VirtualBook/VirtualBookCoverSheet.asp

Mannheim, Karl and Lawrence Solum. "The Case for gTLD Auctions." Research Paper #2003-11, Loyola Law School. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=515183

Mueller, Milton and Lee McKnight. "The Post-.com Internet: Toward Regular and Objective Procedures for Internet Governance." Telecommunications Policy 28 (7/8), 487-502 (2004) http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/NewTLDs2-MM-LM.pdf

National Research Council. Signposts in Cyberspace: the Domain Name System and Internet Navigation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. (2005).

[23] Consensus Policies has a particular meaning within the ICANN environment. Refer to http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm for the full list of ICANN's Consensus Policies.

[24] The full list of reports are found in the Reference section at the end of the document.

[25] Particularly with ICANN's initiatives to improve its operations http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16oct06.htm.