[council] Some discussion items for face to face gTLD meeting

[Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

As noted in the agenda previously distributed, staff expects to cover the full 
set of GNSO recommendations at this week's meeting, reviewing the vision, 
planning, work, and most recent accomplishments for each.

In advance of this, please see below a list of areas on which staff is 
particularly interested in input from the Council.  Input is welcomed of course 
on any aspect of implementation, but staff has identified the following items 
for which Council input would be particularly desirable.  Please note that 
Friday's meeting will not be the only opportunity for the Council and 
constituencies to provide input on these topics.  The below are intended to 
serve as pointers to some areas to have in mind leading up to the next 
discussion.

Allocation Methods (Recs 7,8,13)

1.  RFP Information
Could there be additional purposes to the information sought by ICANN in the 
application, beyond assessment against the criteria?  Could applicant 
information be used for purposes such as compliance or sanctions, long-term 
registry stability, others?

2.  Community-Based Applications
If applicants may identify themselves up front as community-based applicants, 
and they have the option to select and subject other applicants to comparative 
evaluation, is it the intention that these applicants would have an advantage, 
and if so, can this be harmonized with principles of fairness and 
non-discrimination?  This area may present challenges of perception, as there 
is likely to be significant diversity within the category of community-based 
applications.

3.  Technical Service Provider Qualification
ICANN has explored the idea of a separate qualification mechanism for 
"back-end" registry service providers (see 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-31jan08.htm).  Does the GNSO 
believe that such a mechanism would be consistent with the principles and 
recommendations they have laid out?  If so, what would be an appropriate 
contractual or accountability framework between these providers and ICANN?

4.  Communications and Transitions between Application Rounds
a.  There are different paths for applications and timing will vary for these 
different paths.  What is the appropriate measurement for when the first round 
is complete and a second can begin?  When all applications to have reached 
their final resolution?  Or can ICANN at some point create a "temporary 
reserved list" for any still-pending applications, excluding these from the 
next rounds?

b.  Given the GNSO's desire for the RFP to include scheduling information on 
subsequent rounds, what is an appropriate time frame for incorporating 
improvements from experience in Round 1 into the process, and how does this 
impact the timeline for future rounds?

5.  Comparative Evaluation Criteria
What are some examples of criteria that could be used for reviewing added value 
to the DNS, when there are two or more qualified applicants for the same 
string?  As a starting point, see the "Community Value" criteria used in the 
sTLD round, http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/PostAppA.pdf.

Selection Criteria (Recs 2,3,4,5,6,12,20)

1.  Objection Results
If an application is denied by ICANN due to an objection prevailing against the 
string, does this carry over to subsequent rounds so that no future applicants 
could apply for that string?  Could this vary depending on the different 
objection grounds?

2.  File Extensions
There has been an ongoing discussion concerning whether strings that are 
commonly-used file extensions should be disallowed as TLDs due to potential 
user confusion issues.  Should there be any additional consideration of this 
issue following a set of public comments on this subject (see 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/msg00014.html)?

3.  Geographical Names
Geographical names are not reserved, as per the RNWG recommendations.  How can 
ICANN to handle applications for these names in a way that will address the 
GAC's concerns about country, territory, and place names 
(http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf)?

Contractual Conditions (Recs 10,14,15,16,17,18,19)

1.  Contract Variations
Should there be a one-size fits all contract or could there be different 
contracts available depending on the type of applicant (private company, IGO, 
government)?

I hope these questions are useful to you in your preparations.  Please let me 
know if I can be of any further assistance.

Best regards,

Karen

-

Karen Lentz
ICANN
+1 310 301 5836 office
+1 310 895 3637 mobile