At-Large%20Summit%20February%2028,%202009

1
Working Group 3 New gTLDs
At-Large SummitFebruary 28, 2009
2
The WG3 Committee

• Chair Khaled Koubaa
• Vice-Chairs Rudy Vansnick, Hong Xue
• Rapporteur Evan Leibovitch

3
History of the Process

• First guidebook published October 2008
• More than 1200 pages of feedback from 1200
  entities
• Second draft produced February 2009
• End of comment period April 29

4
The core of the document

• Module 1 Introduction
• Module 2 Evaluation
• Module 3 Dispute Resolution
• Module 4 String Contention
• Module 5 Transition to Delegation
• Module 6 Terms and Conditions

nt
5
The cost

• Fees
• 185,000 up-front
• 50,000 if extended review needed
• 25,000 per year
• In case of disputes
• 1,000-5,000 per party fees to ICANN
• 2,000-122,000 to adjudicators (est)
• Extra fees
• If comparative resolution required
• Registry agreements, etc

6
The process

• Public comments invited
• Initial evaluation
• String will not cause DNS security or stability
  problems
• Evaluation of the proposing entity
• Extended evaluation possible in case preliminary
  evaluation fails

7
Objections String Confusion

• Can be made by
• Existing TLD operator
• gTLD applicant (in the same round)
• Includes multiple applicants for the same domain
• Contention resolution procedure
• For community-based TLDs which is closest to
  the community
• For open TLDs auction

8
Objections -Legal Rights

• Only rights-holders may object
• Even unregistered trademarks
• Can rights in one country be asserted over a gTLD
  applied for in another?

9
Objections Morality and Public Order

• No determination yet over who can file or why
• Governments?
• Individuals?
• How to prevent frivolous objections?
• Money not necessarily a good disincentive
• Current thought
• Objectors must demonstrate legitimate interest
  and/or harm
• Adjudicator who has the greater moral standing /
  rights

10
Objections Morality and Public Order

• An expert panel will consider whether the
  applied-for gTLD string us contrary to general
  principles of international law for morality and
  public order, or reflected in relevant
  international agreements
• Incitement of violence or lawless action
• Promotion of discrimination on race, color,
  gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin
• The gTLD would be contrary to equally generally
  accepted identified norms relating to morality
  and public order that are recognized under
  general principles of international law

11
Objections Community

• Can be made by established institutions
  associated with defined communities
• Legitimacy, history and global recognition of the
  objector org is a factor
• Allows for independent objectors unaffiliated
  with any entity but acting soley in the best
  interests of the public who use the global
  Internet (can also object on morality and
  public order grounds)

12
Dispute Resolution

• Negotiations / mediation
• Panel of experts
• Dispute Resolution Providers
• Consolidation of Objections

13
Response from the USDepartment of Commerce

• Don't jeopardize stability or security of DNS
• impose maximum price caps
• ICANN should demonstrate it has enough capacity
  to enforce contract compliance
• IANN should not focus on matters more
  appropriately addressed by governments (morality,
  public order, community objections, international
  law
• There should be a clear rationale for the
  proposed fee structure as well as a transparent
  mechanism that includes community agreement

14
Response from USDepartment of Justice

• ICANN should give greater consideration to
  consumer interests before creating new gTLDs
• ICANN should revise the RFP process and the
  proposed registry agreement to protect consumers
  from the exercise of market power

15
The ALAC point of view

• New GTLD applicants may not be convicted felons,
  nor previously sanctioned by ICANN for domain
  abuse.
• New GTLD applicants must make a firm commitment
  to providing complete and accurate WHOIS data in
  accordance with existing contractual language
• DNSSEC and IDN implementation questions should
  not be optional. Applicants must demonstrate an
  understanding of DNSSEC and IDNs and be required
  to present an implementation strategy.

16
The ALAC point of view

• Objectors status excludes consumers, end-users
  and others who may have legitimate objection on
  the basis of confusion.
• Morality and public order, if not ICANN, then
  who?
• Page 3-4, Section 3.2, paragraphs 2-4 DRSPs are
  listed but not described. Who is qualified to
  define morality?

17
The ALAC point of view

• The fee structure is a major barrier for small
  communities and the developing world.
• Existing ICANN processes are inadequate for a
  large increase of gTLDs.ICANN needs to
  demonstrate the capacity to grow
• Lack of mechanisms to ensure global public
  benefit from new gTLDs
• Inadequate and inappropriate use of morality and
  public order for objections
• A first round of application should be reserved
  for a small number of applications that can
  easily go through the process.

18
Now it's your turn...

• What is At-Large's point of view on the process?

19

• New GTLD applicants may not be convicted felons,
  nor previously sanctioned by ICANN for domain
  abuse.
• New GTLD applicants must make a firm commitment
  to providing complete and accurate WHOIS data in
  accordance with existing contractual language
• DNSSEC and IDN implementation questions should
  not be optional. Applicants must demonstrate an
  understanding of DNSSEC and IDNs and be required
  to present an implementation strategy.
• Objectors status is unreasonably circumscribed.
  For string confusion, it is limited to existing
  registries or applicants to become a new
  registry. This excludes consumers, end-users and
  others who may have legitimate objection on the
  basis of confusion.
• Morality and public order, no objector is
  listed. It is understood that this is a work in
  progress, but the plan cannot go into
  implementation with this factor undecided, or
  simply excluded from the ICANN process and
  deferred to individual governments. For community
  objection eligibility, only an established
  institution is listed, a term that is vague and
  undefined and possibly exclusive to an aggrieved
  member of a community, or someone unfairly
  excluded from one. Section 3.1.2.4 does little to
  assuage this concern, and places undue weight and
  power in the hands of institutions over
  individuals.
• Page 3-4, Section 3.2, paragraphs 2-4 DRSPs
  are listed but not described. As noted in
  previous overview text, the International Chamber
  of Commerce is a business association, hardly
  suited to adjudicating morality and public order
  disputes. The International Centre for Dispute
  Resolution is undefined. Who is its sponsor? Is
  it a not-for-profit or NGO? What are its
  membership requirements?

The ALAC point of view
20
The 2009 Committee will select

• At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Members
• 3 seats
• 2 year terms
• Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific, Latin America
  Caribbean)
• Board of Directors
• 3 seats
• 3 year terms

21
The 2009 Committee will select

• Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
  Council Member
• 2 seats
• 2 year terms
• Country Code Names Supporting Organization
  (ccNSO) Council Member
• 1 seat
• 3 year term

22
How the NomCom process works

• Khaled Koubaa
• 2008 and 2009 Nominating Committees Member

23
How the NomCom works

• NomCom functions independently of other parts of
  ICANN
• Membership is defined in ICANN Bylaws
• Members act on behalf of global Internet
  community and pursue broad public interest
• Members have no commitments to particular
  individuals, organizations, or commercial
  objectives
• Members commit to a Code of Ethics on integrity,
  conflict of interest, and confidentiality
• NomCom operates in parallel to other selection
  processes for leadership positions (e.g.
  elections and constituencies)

24
What are we looking for?
commitment to ICANN's mission knowledgeable
about the environment in which ICANN operates and
the technical functions for which it is
responsible sound judgment and group
decision-making skills willingness to serve as
volunteer, without compensation other than the
reimbursement of travel ability to work and
communicate in written and spoken English (no
requirement that English be your first
language) integrity and capability for problem
solving, policy development, and decision-making.
25
What is involved?

• 20 hours a month, more if youre on extra
  sub-committees
• Participate remotely in regular committee
  meetings conducted through English
• Attend ICANN meetings 3 times a year

26
Nom Com Timeline

• Nomination period is already open (30 November
  2008)
• Deadline 15 April 2009
• NomCom Review and Evaluation completed by 29 June

27
Nom Com Timeline

• Results Announced by beginning of September,
  2009
• Nominees take their positions at the conclusion
  of the ICANN Annual General Meeting, 30 October
  2009

28
What you should do

• Submit your Statement of Interest by 15 April
  2009 - Line up your 2 references and make sure
  they are ready
• Nominate a good candidate or just invite him/her
  to submit.

29
How to find out more

• Ask Khaled and Hong
• Ask anyone with a red lanyard
• Come to the ICANN booth at the main meeting site
• Visit our website
• http//nomcom.icann.org or
• http//www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement
  -12feb09-en.htm
• Email maria.farrell_at_icann.org to set up a
  meeting with a NomCom rep. in Mexico

30
Thank you http//nomcom.icann.org