Summary of Constituency Statements on Future new Services or Actions by gTLD Registries

Five Constituency Statements were received, and one from the At-Large Advisory Committee, regarding this PDP.

Commercial and Business User Constituency

The CBUC supports the need for a clear, defined process, with attention given to considerations of introduction and assessment.

Intellectual Property Constituency

The IPC outlines a transparent process that calls for significant community involvement.

The Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency

The ISPCP supports the need for a defined process that is clear in its criteria and is based on community involvement in how and why decisions are reached.

Non-Commercial User Constituency

The NCUC emphasizes ICANN's role in technical coordination and supports a clear, well-defined process.

Registrars Constituency

The Registrars Constituency supports a defined, predictable process that gives appropriate consideration to competition concerns arising from the unique position of registries in the operation of the DNS.

At-Large Advisory Committee

The ALAC encourages developing a neutral, objective process that provides opportunities for relevant parties to participate.

Note: The gTLD Registry Constituency did not submit a constituency statement.

All of the statements submitted agreed that the development of a defined, transparent, predictable process for the consideration of changes to gTLD registry services is within ICANN's purview, and will be beneficial for the community.

Areas of agreement about the process specified by two or more constituencies:

• Timeliness: the process should not hinder innovations from being introduced
• "Quick-Look," or "Fast-Track": the process would benefit from having a two-track or multi-track review that would allow certain types of changes to be implemented without difficulty
• Transparency: the process should be transparent, and that there should also be mechanisms for preserving proprietary information
• Predictability: the process should be defined and predictable with clear criteria of evaluation
• Definitions and Criteria: defining terms and criteria for evaluation is essential to producing a useful process
• 3^rd Party Review: self-assessment by a Registry is insufficient to determine the scope of technical or competition harm
• Review Process Reporting: the process should include reporting mechanisms that show the reasoning and rationale for a given decision
• Remedies: the Registry should be given concrete recommendations on remedies to offset identified technical and/or competition harm
• Specific Timeline: there should be a defined a timeline for the review process
• Appeals: there should be an appeals process for decisions regarding approval
• Community Participation: where appropriate, the ICANN community should be participants in the review process

For all of the above areas of agreement, there are still some considerable differences between the constituencies on the specifics of the issues involved. While all may agree that the process should be timely, most have different views on what that means. Also, there were some issues raised by a single constituency and not addressed at all by others, such as how much it will cost to implement a new process (CBUC), what recourse will exist for ICANN and the community if an evaluation fails to accurately assess harm (ISPCP), and whether the process should be different for dominant/non-dominant TLDs (NCUC).