Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

New gTLDs committee meeting minutes

Last Updated:

Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains

Committee Meeting

15 June 2006

Proposed agenda and documents

Committee members present

Bruce Tonkin - Registrars C.

Alistair Dixon- CBUC

Greg Ruth - ISCPC

Antonio Harris - ISCPC

Greg Ruth - ISCPC

Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries

Cary Karp - gTLD registries

Robin Gross - NCUC

Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee


Werner Staub - Core


Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination

Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor

Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons

Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison - absent


Marilyn Cade - CBUC - apologies

Ross Rader - Registrars C.

Tom Keller - Registrars C.

Tony Holmes - ISCPC - apologies

Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - apologies

Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - apologies

Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C

Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee

Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee

Mawaki Chango - NCUC

Norbert Klein - NCUC

MP3 Recording

Bruce Tonkin summarised the structure of the GNSO Initial Report on the Introduction of New generic Top-Level Domains. A fair portion of the draft recommendations for selection criteria in the report had strong support. Further feedback from the ICANN community on the sponsored round type criteria should be sought in the Marrakech public forum.

The situations where contention for a string may occur in a “first-come first served” environment was discussed assuming that the initial rounds for new gTLDs would be conducted in batches. For example, ICANN could collect applications for a three month period, and then process those applications on a first-come first served basis, expect where there were multiple applications for the same string or same purpose. For the case of contention for the same string or purpose, the question of support for an objective allocation method such as lottery or auction, or an subjective comparative evlaution needs further public input

Ken Stubbs read comments submitted by some of the gTLD registry members.

The intent of the conference call was not to debate policy issues, but to improve and clarify the wording in the report and add new material that might come out of the current discussions in the Final Report.

Bruce Tonkin requested suggestions for further input during the Marrakech meetings.

What input, and what topics could be expected from the GAC.?

It was suggested identifying specific areas for the GAC to comment on up front, such as the choice of strings, and whether the GAC had strong views on string types that should be allowed.

What were GAC members' expectations within the string at the second level.

What are the public policy issues associated with introducing new TLDs.

What would be expected at the public forum?

Keep to a brief summary of the work done and go to an open mike for public comments.

In the GNSO Council meeting the focus would be on expectation management with respect to the next steps in the process and the timeline for the next steps. The proposal to have another face-to-face meeting between Marrakech and Sao Paulo to work on the final recommendations will also be discussed.

Bruce Tonkin adjourned the meeting and thanked all the participants.

Meeting adjourned at 13: 25 UTC. (15:25 CET)