GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding issues listed in the GAC Cartagena
Communiqué- scorecard to serve as the basis of the GAC approach to Brussels ICANN Board/GAC consultation
meeting 28 February-1 March 2011
Introduction
The scorecard below represents the considered efforts of the GAC to distil the key elements of consensus advice regarding the
introduction of new gTLDs it has been providing the ICANN Board since March, 2007.
As the GAC noted in its Cartagena Communique, the GAC's initial advice, presented in the form of Principles, pre-dated both thecompletion of the GNSO's Recommendations on new gTLDs and the ICANN Board's subsequent adoption of those Recommendations
in June, 2008. The GAC has sought from the outset of its deliberations regarding the public policy aspects related to the introductionof new gTLDs to contribute to the bottom-up, consensus-based policy development process within ICANN. As per the ICANN
Bylaws, the GAC provides advice directly to the ICANN Board. Once the GAC forwards its advice to the ICANN Board, the GAC
understands that it is within the ICANN Board's remit to instruct ICANN staff to take the GAC's advice into account in thedevelopment of the implementation plan for the introduction of new gTLDs. The GAC therefore welcomes the opportunity presented
by the ICANN Board's agreement to hold a meeting with the GAC to review its longstanding and outstanding concerns regarding
ICANN's proposed implementation plan for the introduction of new gTLDs. From the GAC's perspective, the Brussels meetings are
not only an appropriate but a critical next step in ensuring the perspectives of governments are fully taken into account in the ICANN
private sector-led, multi-stakeholder model that ICANN represents.

Twelve outstanding issues
1.
2.

The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees ........................................................................ 3
Procedures for the review of sensitive strings................................................................................................................................ 3
1. String Evaluation and Objections Procedure.............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Expand Categories of Community-based Strings ....................................................................................................................... 4
3. Root Zone Scaling......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Market and Economic Impacts ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Registry – Registrar Separation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
6. Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue.......................................................................................................... 7
1. Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing House (TC) .................................................................................................................. 7
2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS):............................................................................................................... 8

3.
4.

Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP).............................................................................10
Consumer Protection ................................................................................................................................................................11
7. Post-Delegation Disputes .............................................................................................................................................................12
8. Use of geographic names: ............................................................................................................................................................12
1. Definition of geographic names................................................................................................................................................12
2. Further requirements regarding geographic names....................................................................................................................13
9. Legal Recourse for Applications: .................................................................................................................................................14
10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries..............................................................14
Main issues .....................................................................................................................................................................................14
11. Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels
Communiqué ......................................................................................................................................................................................17
12. The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities(including geographical names)...........................................................................................................................................................17
Appendix: Background Material ........................................................................................................................................................19
1. Intellectual Property Rights ......................................................................................................................................................19
2. Root Zone Scaling....................................................................................................................................................................23
3. Geographic Names: Analysis of GAC’s DAG4 comments and ICANN’s answers....................................................................25
4. GAC’s position on “Definition of geographic names” ..............................................................................................................26
5. Providing opportunity for all stakeholders including those from developing countries ..............................................................26

1.

The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees

Recommended GAC Advice:
The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to delete the procedures related to “Limited Public Interest Objections”
in Module 3.
Explanation:
Although the new heading has been renamed from “Morality and Public Order Objections”, the body of the text remains unchanged
and contains the same fundamental flaws which can only be remedied through deletion.
Specifically, the requirement that governments pay fees and must be bound by determinations by the International Centre forExpertise of the International Chamber of Commerce, which will in turn be guided by the findings of “three experts recognized aseminent jurists of international reputation”, is contrary to the sovereign right of governments to interpret and apply principles ofinternational law on a country-by-country basis. Governments cannot be bound by the determinations of private individuals ororganizations on matters that pertain to national law.
The requirement is also inconsistent with the provisions in ICANN’s Bylaws that call for governments to provide public policy advice
to the ICANN Board through the Governmental Advisory Committee.
Lastly, there are no “generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international
principles of law” (Module 3, Article 2, e, iii), nor is it feasible to expect that any panel of “experts” could reach a determination
whether a particular proposed new gTLD string would be considered objectionable on such grounds.

2.

Procedures for the review of sensitive strings

1. String Evaluation and Objections Procedure
The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called
for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC.
At the beginning of the Initial Evaluation Period, ICANN will provide the GAC with a detailed summary of all new gTLD
applications. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason.
The GAC will consider any objection raised by a GAC member or members, and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board.
GAC advice could also suggest measures to mitigate GAC concerns. For example, the GAC could advise that additional scrutiny andconditions should apply to strings that could impact on public trust (e.g. ‘.bank’).
In the event the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GAC advice pursuant to Article XI Section 2.1 j and k,
the Board will provide a rationale for its decision.
Explanation:
This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it provides governments with a more appropriate mechanism than the“Limited Public Interest Objections” procedure to communicate objections via the GAC. It is also intended to diminish the potential
for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS andundermines the goal of universal resolvability.
Affording governments the early opportunity, through the GAC, to provide advice to the ICANN Board about particular proposed
strings is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decisions are in the global public interest and represent community
consensus.
2. Expand Categories of Community-based Strings
The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the provisions and procedures contained in Modules 1 and 3 toclarify the following:
1. “Community-based strings” include those that purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests
based on historical, cultural or social components of identity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or
particular social origin or group, political opinion, membership of a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or
linguistic group (non exhaustive). In addition, those strings that refer to particular sectors, such as those subject to national
regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to a population or industry that is vulnerable toonline fraud or abuse, should also be considered “community-based” strings.
2. Applicants seeking such strings should be required to affirmatively identify them as “community-based strings” and must
demonstrate their affiliation with the affected community, the specific purpose of the proposed TLD, and –when opportuneevidence of support or non-objection from the relevant authority/ies that the applicant is the appropriate or agreed entity for
purposes of managing the TLD.
3. In the event the proposed string is either too broad to effectively identify a single entity as the relevant authority or appropriate
manager, or is sufficiently contentious that an appropriate manager cannot be identified and/or agreed, the application should
be rejected.
4. The requirement that objectors must demonstrate “material detriment to the broader Internet community” should be amended
to reflect simply “material detriment”, as the former represents an extremely vague standard that may prove impossible tosatisfy.
5. Individual governments that choose to file objections to any proposed “community-based” string should not be required to pay
fees.
Explanation:
The proposed approach would remedy the failure in the draft Applicant Guidebook to incorporate the GAC’s previous advice that
ICANN’s new gTLD process should respect the legitimate interests of governments regarding terms with national, cultural,geographic and religious significance. It also anticipates the strong possibility that there will be proposed new gTLD strings for which
an appropriate manager cannot be identified and/or agreed, which should cause the application to be rejected as a community-based
string. It corrects an impossibly vague standard of “detriment to the broader Internet community” with a more practical and realistic
standard of “material detriment” to the community in question. Finally, this proposal recognizes the right of governments to protect
their perceived national interests through the Community objections process without the obligation to pay fees.

3.

Root Zone Scaling

Recommended GAC Advice:
1.
The Board should continue implementing a monitoring and alerting system and ensure a) that ICANN can react predictably
and quickly when there are indicators that new additions and changes are straining the root zone system, and b) that theprocesses and possible resulting restorative measures that flow from its results are fully described in the Application
Guidebook before the start of the first application round.
2.
The Board commits to defer the launch of a second round or batch of applications unless an evaluation shows that there areindications from monitoring the root system etc. that a first (limited) round did not in any way jeopardize the security andstability of the root zone system.
3.
The Board commits to make the second round or batch of applications contingent on a clean sheet from full technical andadministrative assessment of impact of the first round with recommendations which should go out to public comment for
approval.
4.
The Board commits to avoid the possibility that other activities will be impacted by the possible diversion of resources toprocessing new gTLD applications.
5.
The Board should ensure that ICANN can effectively address the specific needs of applicants from different, perhaps nonEnglish speaking cultures, and with different legal environments.
6.
The Board should monitor the pace and effectiveness of ICANN’s management of contract negotiations for new gTLDs in
a potential situation of 200 to 300 simultaneous applications and evaluations.
7.
The Board is confident that all relevant actors (IANA, root server operators, etc) are sufficiently informed about what is
expected from them in terms of work loadings and resources in order to fulfil their respective roles, in particular the pre-delegation checking, approvals, implementation of potentially 200 to 300 root zone changes a year and expected postdelegation changes.

4.

Market and Economic Impacts

The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the final Draft Applicant Guidebook to incorporate thefollowing:
1.
2.
3.

Criteria to facilitate the weighing of the potential costs and benefits to the public in the evaluation and award of newgTLDs.
A requirement that new gTLD applicants provide information on the expected benefits of the proposed gTLD, as well as
information and proposed operating terms to eliminate or minimize costs to registrants and consumers.
Due diligence or other operating restrictions to ensure that Community-based gTLDs will in fact serve their targetedcommunities and will not broaden their operations in a manner that makes it more likely for the registries to impose costs
on existing domain owners in other TLDs.

Explanation:
The economic studies conducted by Katz, Rosston and Sullivan contain important findings that the past introduction of new gTLDs
provided minimal public benefits in terms of competition for existing gTLDs and relieving name scarcity. The studies further stateclearly that the introduction of new gTLDs had imposed costs on intellectual property owners in diluted brand strength, defensive
registrations, and other costs associated with protecting their brands.

5.

Registry – Registrar Separation

The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the proposed new registry agreement to restrict crossownership between registries and registrars, in those cases where it can be determined that the registry does have, or is likely to obtain,
market power. The GAC further advises the ICANN Board that it considers the absence of a thorough and reasoned explanation of its
decision in November 2010 to reverse its earlier decision of March 2010 to maintain " strict separation of entities offering registry
services and those acting as registrars" and that "no co-ownership will be allowed" to be inconsistent with its commitments under theAffirmation of Commitments.
Explanation:
The CRA International report commissioned by ICANN noted that vertical integration between registries and registrars could foster
both pre-competitive and anticompetitive outcomes. As the key issue is whether a gTLD has market power, it would only beappropriate for ICANN to relax or lift restrictions on vertical integration in cases where it is clear that a gTLD faces or will facesubstantial competition. Such analysis would benefit from consultations with relevant antitrust authorities.
Further, ICANN has committed to provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of ICANN decisions, the rationale thereof and thesources of data and information on which ICANN relies. This has not been done yet to explain how the Board moved from a positionin March 2010, as articulated in a Board resolution, of no cross ownership, to the May 31, 2010 staff proposal contained in draft
Applicant Guidebook, version 4 of de minimus (i.e., no more than 2%) cross ownership, to the November 5, 2010 decision allowing
full cross ownership. ICANN staff have provided an justification for the second decision but not an explanation of why ICANN's
position changed so dramatically in the space of 8 months.

6.

Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue

1. Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing House (TC)GAC Advice
The GAC proposes the following refining changes that significantly improve the operation and achieve the maximum impact of theTC:• The TC should be permitted to accept all types of intellectual property rights that are recognized under the national law of thecountry or countries under which the registry is organized or has its principal place of business. The only mandatory requirement
for new registry operators will be to recognize national and supranational trademark registrations issued before June 26, 2008 andcourt-validated common law trademarks.
• Sunrise services and IP claims should both be mandatory for registry operators because they serve different functions with IP
claims serving a useful notice function beyond the introductory phase.
• IP claims services and sunrise services should go beyond exact matches to include exact match plus key terms associated withgoods or services identified by the mark ) e.g. “Kodakonlineshop”) and typographical variations identified by the rights holder.
• All trademark registrations of national and supranational effect, regardless of whether examined on substantive or relative grounds,
must be eligible to participate in the pre-launch sunrise mechanisms.
• Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications for registrations, marks within any opposition
period or registered marks that were the subject of successful invalidation, cancellation or rectification proceedings.
• The IP claims service should notify the potential domain name registrant of the rights holder’s claim and also notify the rights
holder of the registrant’s application for the domain name.
• The TC should continue after the initial launch of each gTLD.

•Rights holders, registries and registrars should all contribute to the cost of the TC because they all benefit from it.

Explanation and argument
The GAC believes that the TC as currently framed in the Applicant Guidebook needs to be significantly improved because a) there islack of clarity as to the modalities of the TC process and operation and b) there are problems with its applicability. While the GAC
recognizes that the Trademark Clearing House (TC) mechanism was not introduced as a rights protection mechanism but as a cost
reduction tool, the GAC believes it can provide effective and efficient means to enable rights holders to submit their trade markregistrations with a single entity rather than with every registry in which they may wish to obtain a second-level registration.
There is also a major inconsistency between Sunrise and IP Claims services because Sunrise services only recognize trademarks thatare registered in countries conducting a so-called substantive review or examination. The consequences of this are significant in termsof eligibility. In Europe, for example, all “Community Trademarks” (i.e. any trademark which is pending registration or has beenregistered in the European Union as a whole rather than on a national level within the EU) and most national trademarks are excluded
from the Sunrise service. These amendments would ensure that all trademark registrations could qualify for participation in the prelaunch sunrise mechanism, consistent with existing best practices (e.g. the policies for .eu, .tel, and .asia).
With regard to presentation in the Applicant Guidebook, the GAC recommends that the text could more clearly indicate (perhaps witha flow chart) at what time during the evaluation process, and by what entity, objections to potential trademark infringements should besubmitted.
2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS):GAC Advice:••

Significantly reduce the timescales. See attached table for proposed changes.
The URS processes should be streamlined as follows:o The complaint should be simplified by replacing the 5,000 word free text limit + unlimited attachments [para 1.2] with asimple pro forma standardised wording with the opportunity fro not more than 500 words of freeform text and limit theattachments to copies of the offending website.
o Decisions should be taken by a suitably qualified ‘Examiner’ and not require panel appointments..
o Where the complaint is based upon a valid registration, the requirement that the jurisdiction of registration incorporate
substantive examination (paras 1.2f (i) and 8.1a) should be removed.
o If, as is expected in the majority of cases, there is no response from the registrant, the default should be in favour of the

•

•
•
•
•
•

complainant and the website locked. The examination of possible defences in default cases according to para 8.4(2) would
otherwise give an unjustified privilege to the non-cooperating defendant.
o The standard of proof (para 8.2) should be lowered from “clear and convincing evidence” to a preponderance of evidence”.
The “bad faith” requirement in paras 1.2f), 1.2g) and 8.1c) is not acceptable. Complainants will in only rare cases prevail in
URS proceedings if the standards to be fulfilled by registrants are lax. Correspondingly, the factors listed in paras 5.7a) (“bonafide”) and b) “been commonly known by the domain name”) can hardly allow a domain name owner to prevail over theholders of colliding trademarks.
A ‘loser pays’ mechanism should be added. In addition, registrants who have lost five or more URS proceedings should be
deemed to have waived the opportunity to respond to future URS complaints (this amendment corresponds to the “two strikes”
provision which applies to rights holders).
However, there should be a clear rationale for appeal by the complainant. The time for filing an appeal in default cases must
be reduced from 2 years to not more than 6 months. In addition, the examination of possible defences in default cases
according to para 8.4(2) means an unjustified privilege of the non-cooperating defendant.
The URS filing fee should be US$200-US$300 and minor administrative deficiencies should not result in dismissal of the
URS complaint.
A successful complainant should have the right of first refusal for transfer of the disputed domain name after the suspension
period so that the complainant is not forced to pursue a UDRP proceeding to secure a transfer.
The URS should go beyond ‘exact’ matches and should at least include exact + goods/other generic words e.g.
“Kodakonlineshop”.

Explanation and argument
The generally acknowledged rapid escalation of the opportunity for cybersquatting caused by the proposed new gTLD round is an
issue of major concern for governments in view of its likely impact on business, consumer and economic welfare, both nationally andglobally. The URS mechanism was recommended specifically to tackle obvious examples of opportunistic cybersquatting by
providing rights holders with a cost effective and swift remedy.
The GAC advises therefore that these proposed amendments to the URS are most important. Without these amendments, the GAC
believes that URS will fail to meet its stated purpose and will be rendered ineffective and useless.
In particular, the GAC considers that the current proposals are too cumbersome and lengthy to support public policy objectives ofharm reduction. Surveys and consultations undertaken by GAC representatives show that few in-house trade mark counsel believe thatthe proposed URS system in the final DAG provides a cost effective, expedited process in clear cut cases of trade mark abuse.
Furthermore, the process too closely mirrors the UDRP mechanisms which are intended to deal with more complex disputes. The URS

as currently devised does not contain sufficient deterrence to serial cybersquatters. These changes would bring the URS back into linewith its original objectives as agreed by the IRT and STI by ensuring that the URS provides an effective and rapid remedy, with morestreamlined processes and faster turn round of decisions.
While it is noted that that the URS only covers intentional bad faith conduct, the GAC underlines that ICANN should make every
effort to ensure that safeguards are in place to facilitate reinstatement as soon as possible in a genuine case of accidental rights
infringement, through illness or some other legitimate absence, an individual or small/medium sized enterprise, has failed to respondwithin the timescale available.
3. Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)GAC Advice:
The GAC recommends that:
•
•
•
•

•
•

The standard of proof be changed from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of evidence”.
The second level registrations that form the underlying basis of a successful PDDRP complaint should be deleted.
The requirement of “substantive examination” in para 9.2.1(i) should be deleted.
A new para 6.1 a) be added: “being identical to the complainant’s mark in relation to goods and services which are identical tothose for which the complainant’s mark is registered. This would not apply if the registrant has a better right to the mark. In
particular the registrant will in normal circumstances have a better right if the mark has been registered prior to the registration of
the complainant’s mark.”
Regarding the second level (para 6.2), the registrant operator should be liable if he/she acts in bad faith or is grosslky negligent inrelation to the circumstances listed in para 6.a)-d).
The requirement in para 7.2.3 lit.d) that the complainant has to notify the registry operator at least 30 days prior to filing acomplaint is burdensome and should be reduced to 10 days if not deleted entirely.

Para 19.5 should be amended as follows: “In cases where the Expert Determination decides that a registry operator is liable under the
standards of the Trademark PDDRP, ICANN will impose appropriate remedies that are in line with the Determination.
Explanation and Argument These changes would ensure that the PDDRP is consistent with the requirements in a civil action forcontributory trademark infringement action or unfair competition and that the abusive second level registrations are deleted after asuccessful PDDRP complaint.
The GAC believes that the liability criteria in the Applicant Guidebook are too lax. In particular, according to para 6, the liability of
the registry operator is only triggered by behaviours such as “taking unfair advantage”, “unjustifiable impairment of the distinctive

character of the reputation of the complainant’s mark” or “impermissible likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark”. The
proposed changes to para 6 are therefore intended to strengthen the criteria.
The GAC considers that para 19.5 grants ICANN too much discretion in choosing the remedies it imposes on the registry operatorsand recommends that the remedies be consistent with the Expert Determination.
Ensuring full and effective compliance with the rules is a crucial issue post-delegation. The GAC believes therefore that ICANN
needs to deploy a sufficiently large team for this purpose with an appropriate budget allocation.
4. Consumer Protection
Recommended GAC Advice:
Points of Contact for Abuse: The GAC proposes the following amendment to the "Maintain an abuse point of contact" paragraph in
the DAG to include government agencies which address consumer protection:
A registry operator must assist law enforcement, government agencies and agencies endorsed by governments with their enquiries
about abuse complaints concerning all names registered in the TLD, including taking timely action, as required, to resolve abuse
issues.
Effective Contract Compliance: The GAC advises the Board to ensure that ICANN’s contract compliance function is adequately
resourced to build confidence in ICANN’s ability to enforce agreements between ICANN and registries and registrars.
Explanation and argument:
There are concerns that internationally, "law enforcement" is interpreted as solely referring to police agencies, which would exclude
other enforcers that do not fall under this category. Specifically stating "government agencies and agencies endorsed by agovernment” should (in theory) quash any ambiguity. In addition, the challenges facing ICANN’s current contract compliance efforts
are expected to be magnified with the introduction of an unknown number of new gTLDs.
Vetting of certain strings
The GAC proposes that gTLD strings which relate to any generally regulated industry (e.g. .bank, .dentist, .law) should be subject tomore intensive vetting than other non-geographical gTLDs.
Explanation and argument

The evaluation processes in the Applicant Guidebook offer safeguards to minimise abuse through for example objections on"community grounds." However, government authorities and agencies are concerned about the lack of proper safeguards provided byadditional rigorous procedures for vetting applicants.
Why does the GAC believe that there is a need to enhance consumer protection?
National consumer protection authorities and fair trading agencies have expressed concern that the expansion of the number of gTLDs
will establish certain consumer-orientated gTLDs that will be particularly prone to abuse and risk of increased opportunities for
misrepresentation to consumers and generally expansion of the means for conducting online consumer fraud. Moreover, there is aperceived risk that certain gTLDs may become synonymous with criminal activity which may ultimately undermine consumer trust in
online markets generally.

7.

Post-Delegation Disputes

The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the Applicant Guidebook in the following way:
1. Change the wording in the sample letter of Government support in AG back to the wording in DAGv4 and keeping the newparagraph 7.13 of the new gTLD registry agreement with the changed wording from “may implement” to “will comply”. E.gchange the wording from “may implement” back to “will comply” with a legally binding decision in the relevant jurisdiction.
2. In addition describe in the AG that ICANN will comply with a legally binding decision in the relevant jurisdiction where there
has been a dispute between the relevant government or public authority and registry operator.
Explanation:
Even though ICANN’s commitment to comply with court orders or legally binding decisions by public authorities, the registryagreement between ICANN and the registry should have clear wording on this commitment to make sure that this obligation to theGovernementstands out as a clear and underlying premise for entering into the agreement

8.

Use of geographic names:

1. Definition of geographic names
Recommended GAC Advice:
The GAC asks ICANN to ensure that the criteria for community objections are implemented in a way that appropriately
enables governments to use this instrument to protect their legal interest.

ICANN refers to detailed explanations given in the “Final Draft Applicant Guidebook”.
The GAC is of the view that the criteria for community objections do still not meet these requirements. The problem could be solved,
if a free of charge objection mechanism would allow governments to protect their interest and to define names that are to beconsidered geographic names. This implies that ICANN will exclude an applied for string from entering the new gTLD process when
the government formally states that this string is considered to be a name for which this country is commonly known as
The GAC considers that the provisions in DAG4 in relation to city names carry the danger that an applicant could seek toavoid the safeguard of government support or non-objection if the applicant simply states that the intended use of the name isfor non-community purposes.
The GAC asks ICANN to review the proposal in the DAG in order to ensure that this potential does not arise.
ICANN states that applicants are required to provide a description/purpose for the TLD, and to adhere to the terms and condition ofsubmitting an application including confirming that all statements and representations contained in the application are true andaccurate.
The GAC is of the view that this statement does not reflect fully its concerns and asks for further explanations. The problem could be
solved, if a free objection mechanism would allow governments to protect their interest.
The GAC reminds the Board that governments need time to consult internally before deciding on whether or not to deliver aletter of approval or non-objection.
ICANN explains that it has not been decided how long the application period will be open from the launching of the gTLD program
and recalls that there will be a four months communications campaign prior to the launch.
No further action required by now.
The GAC reiterates its position that governments should not be required to pay a fee for raising objections to new gTLD
applications.
It is the view of the ICANN Board that governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the objection process justlike any other objector.
The problem could be solved, if a free objection mechanism would allow governments to protect their interest.
2. Further requirements regarding geographic names
The GAC clarifies that it is a question of national sovereignty to decide which level of government or which administration is
responsible for the filing of letters of support or non-objection. There may be countries that require that such documentation has to be
filed by the central government - also for regional geoTLDs; in other countries the responsibility for filing letters of support may restwith sub-national level administrations even if the name of the capital is concerned. GAC requests some clarification on this in thenext version of the Applicants Guidebook.
According to the current DAG applications will be suspended (pending resolution by the applicants), if there is more than one
application for a string representing a certain geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals. The GAC
understands such a position for applications that have support of different administrations or governmental entities. In suchcircumstances it is not considered appropriate for ICANN to determine the most relevant governmental entity; the same applies, if one
string represents different geographic regions or cities. Some governments, however, may prefer not to select amongst applicants andsupport every application that fulfils certain requirements. Such a policy may facilitate decisions in some administrations and avoid
time-consuming calls for tenders. GAC encourages ICANN to process those applications as other competing applications that apply
for the same string.

9.

Legal Recourse for Applications:

In commenting DAG4 GAC emphasised that a denial of any legal recourse – as stipulated in the guidebook - is inappropriate.
In its response the ICANN Board stated that it does not believe that ICANN should expose itself to costly lawsuits any more than isappropriate.
The GAC reiterates its concern that excluding the possibility of legal recourse might raise severe legal problems. GAC therefore urges
the ICANN Board to seek legal advice in major jurisdiction whether such a provision might cause legal conflicts – in particular but notlimited to US and European competition laws. If ICANN explains that it has already examined these legal questions carefully andconsidering the results of these examinations still adheres to that provision, GAC will no longer insist on its position. However, theGAC expects that ICANN will continue to adhere to the rule of law and follow broad principles of natural justice. For example, if
ICANN deviates from its agreed processes in coming to a decision, the GAC expects that ICANN will provide an appropriate
mechanism for any complaints to be heard.

10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing
countries
Main issues
1.
Cost Considerations“ GAC urged ICANN to set technical and other requirements, including cost considerations, at a reasonable and proportionate level inorder not to exclude stakeholders from developing countries from participating in the new gTLD process.”

GAC: new gTLD applications from municipalities and local governments in developing countries
2.
Language diversity
Key documents produced by ICANN must be available in all UN languages within a reasonable period in advance of the launch of thegTLD round. The GAC strongly recommends that the communications strategy for the new gTLD round be developed with this issue
of inclusiveness as a key priority”.
3.
Technical and logistics support
4.
Outreach – as per Joint AC/SO recommendations
5.
Joint AC/SO Working Group on support for new gTLD applicants.
On 10th December 2010 the GAC through its Cartagena GAC communiqué stated as follows: “The GAC welcomed an update on thework of the Joint AC/SO Working Group on support, and encourages the Working Group to continue their efforts, particularly withregard to further outreach with developing countries” further, the GAC urged ICANN to adopt recommendations of the Joint AC/SO
Working Group.
Recommendations of the Joint AC/SO Working Group:
Who should receive Support?
• Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society and not-for-profit organizations• Limited Community based applications such as cultural, linguistic and ethnic• Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited• Local entrepreneurs, in those markets where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult• Applicants located in emerging economies
Type of support:• Cost Reduction Support• Sponsorship and other funding support• Modifications to the financial continued operation instrument obligation• Technical support• Logistical support• Obligation Technical support for applicants in operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD
• gTLD Exception to the rules requiring separation of the Registry and Registrar function
6.
Applications from Governments or National authorities (especially municipal councils and provincial authorities) –special consideration for applications from developing countries
GAC communiqué’s on the issue:
i. Brussels CommuniquéThe GAC commented that the new gTLD process should meet the global public interest consistent with the Affirmation ofCommitments. It therefore urged ICANN to set technical and other requirements, including cost considerations, at areasonable and proportionate level in order not to exclude developing country stakeholders from participating in the new
gTLD-process. Key documents should be available in all UN languages. The GAC urges that the communications andoutreach strategy for the new gTLD round be developed with this issue of inclusiveness as a key priority.
ii. Nairobi Communiqué
The GAC believed that instead of the then proposal of single-fee requirement, a cost-based structure of fees appropriate toeach category of TLD would:a) prevent cross subsidization andb) better reflect the project scale,This would improve logistical requirements and financial position of local community and developing country
stakeholders who should not be disenfranchised from the new TLD round.
Further the board believes that :a. New gTLD process is developed on a cost recovery model.
b. Experience gained from first round will inform decisions on fee levels, and the scope for discounts and subsidies insubsequent rounds.
c. Non-financial means of support are being made available to deserving cases.
i. Proposed that the following be entertained to achieve cost reduction:•
Waiving the cost of Program Development ($26k).
•
Waiving the Risk/Contingency cost ($60k).
•
Lowering the application cost ($100k)•
Waiving the Registry fixed fees ($25k per calendar year), and charge the Registry- Level Transaction Fee only($0.25 per domain name registration or renewal).
ii. Proposed that the reduced cost be paid incrementally, which will give the applicants/communities from developing
countries more time to raise money, and investors will be more encouraged to fund an application that passes the initial
evaluation.
iii. Believe that communities from developing countries apply for new gTLDs according to an appropriate business model
taking into consideration the realities of their regions. ICANN’s commitment towards supporting gTLD applicants incommunities from developing countries will be a milestone to the development of the overall Internet community in Africa
and other developing regions.

A.
Other Developing world Community comments
Rolling out new gTLD and IDNs was done in a hurry and without basis on a careful feasibility study on the impact that this rollout
will have on developing countries. For some representatives, this is a massive roll out of gTLDs and IDNs that will find many
developing countries unprepared and unable to absorb it. There is the fear that there might be serious consequence in terms of
economic impact to developing countries.

11.

Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué

The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the final Draft Applicant Guidebook as follows:
Module 1:
1.
Include other criminal convictions as criteria for disqualification, such as Internet-related crimes (felony or misdemeanor)or drugs.
2.
Assign higher weight to applicants offering the highest levels of security to minimize the potential for malicious activity,
particularly for those strings that present a higher risk of serving as venues for criminal, fraudulent or illegal conduct (e.g.
such as those related to children, health-care, financial services, etc.)
Module 2:1.
Add domestic screening services, local to the applicant, to the international screening services.
2.
Add criminal background checks to the Initial Evaluation.
3.
Amend the statement that the results of due diligence efforts will not be posted to a positive commitment to make such
results publicly available
4.
Maintain requirements that WHOIS data be accurate and publicly available.
Explanation:
These amendments will improve the prospects for mitigating malicious conduct and ensuring that criminal elements are hindered fromusing the DNS for criminal and illegal activities. The GAC also strongly encourages, and will contribute LEA expertise to thisactivity, further work on the high level security zone requirements.

12.

The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered
controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names)

In conjunction with the GAC’s proposed amendments to the Objections Procedures, to Community-based strings, and Geographic

Names, the GAC advises ICANN to reconsider its objection to an “early warning” opportunity for governments to review potential
new gTLD strings and to advise applicants whether their proposed strings would be considered controversial or to raise national
sensitivities.

Appendix: Background Material
1. Intellectual Property Rights
National governments have significant public policy concerns that the expansion of gTLDs will increase the level of fraud and abuseon the Internet, which will harm consumers, businesses, and other users of the Internet. The GAC advises the ICANN Board that thecurrent proposed mechanisms to protect consumers and trademark rights from harm and abuse are inadequate and unacceptable. It is
crucial that adequate mechanisms be adopted now -- and not after the first round of new gTLDs is introduced -- to ensure that the riskof such increased fraud and abuse is mitigated.
The GAC restates its previously articulated concerns that ICANN have in place an effective compliance program with sufficient staff
and resources before ICANN launches the new gTLD program.
Why is this an issue of public policy concern for the GAC?
Trademark law protects consumers from deception and confusion and protects trademark owners’ property rights from infringement.
This dual basis, which is reflected in the laws of every GAC member country, mirrors the GAC’s public policy concern in the rights
protection issue.
The GAC acknowledges the potential commercial opportunities associated with the introduction of new gTLDs subject to a set ofrules with adequate mechanisms for rights protection.
However, the GAC has nonetheless always regarded the risks to brand-owners associated with a major expansion of the gTLD space
as a major public policy concern that must be carefully addressed to ensure that the opportunities and benefits outweigh the costs. In
particular, many trademark owners will be forced to purchase second level defensive registrations in order to avoid misuse of theirtrademarks. Purchasing second level registrations will be costly and unlikely to prevent all possible misuse. The GAC notes that thesignificant cost burden for business arising from defensive registrations to protect brands and trade marks was described in theeconomic analysis undertaken by Katz, Rosston and Sullivan
The rights protection mechanisms to be established in the Applicant Guidebook are therefore crucial and must offer practical andcomprehensive approaches consistent with existing national legal frameworks and established best practice.
Once implemented in the first round of gTLD applications, ICANN should commission an independent review of the operation of therights protections mechanisms in order to establish their effectiveness and practicability, to identify any deficiencies and scope forfurther improvement, and to make recommendations for public comment on how they might be changed prior to the second round of
applications.
Relevant history:
The GAC’s recent interaction with the Board on Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection during 2010
The GAC noted in its Nairobi communiqué the recommendations of the Special Trade Marks Issues Review Team. The GAC Chairstated in his letter dated 10 March 2010 to the ICANN Chair regarding DAGv3 that it
is important to ensure that intellectual property rights are properly respected in the new gTLD space consistent with national
and international law and standards. The GAC expects that the proposed Trademark Clearing House should be madeavailable to all trademark owners, irrespective of the legal regime they operate under, and that an effective and sustainable
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), with appropriate remedies, and a Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy are
established to ensure appropriate trade mark protection. While these initiatives are broadly welcomed therefore in serving tohelp address the concerns of brand owners, the GAC believes that they require further refining. In particular, “substantive
examination” should be re-defined so that registrations examined on “absolute grounds” are included in order to ensure
broader availability of the URS.
The Chair of ICANN responded on 5 August 2010 as follows:
The GAC comments, in concert with other comments, were taken in account in version 4 of the Applicant Guidebook that, forthe first time, included the set of proposed intellectual property rights protection mechanisms. In particular, ICANN has
broadened the types of trademark registrations that must be honored in offering a “Sunrise” service and all new registries
employing an IP Claims service must honor trademarks registered in all jurisdictions. The types of registrations offeredprotections have also been broadened for the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service, one of the new post-delegation rights
protection mechanisms. The Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy has also been amended in response to specificrecommendations from the ICANN community.

After due consideration of this response and the amendments contained in DAGv4, the GAC took the view, however, that theICANN response to the GAC’s advice and proposals were insufficient. This was communicated in the GAC Chair’s letter of 23
September 2010 to the ICANN Chair, with particular reference to the Trademark Clearing House (TC) and the Uniform
Rapid Suspension System (URS), as follows:
The GAC notes with great concern that brand-owners continue to be faced with substantial and often prohibitive defensive
registration costs which constitute a negative impact on their business planning and budgeting over which they have nocontrol. Consultations by individual GAC members with business stakeholders underline how this issue remains a fundamental
downside to the expansion of the gTLD space, far outweighing any perception of opportunities for innovation and customerorientated benefits from the creation of corporate brand TLDs.
In the current financial and economic climate, these consultations reveal that many individual brands and businesses andmedia entities – some with large families of brands - find themselves without a sound business case to justify high levels of
expenditure on large numbers of domain name registrations, most of which they are unlikely ever to use. Many of those that dodecide to commit valuable financial resources for acquiring such defensive registrations will need to take some difficult
decisions as to how to prioritise their efforts to avoid as much abuse of their trademarks as possible, in the knowledge thatthey will not be able to prevent all the potential abuse of their brands that the new gTLD round will facilitate.
This problem is exacerbated by lack of awareness: a recent survey carried out by ‘World Trademark Review’ showed that over
50% of respondents did not understand the implications for them of the gTLD programme.
The GAC remains of the view, therefore, that more concerted attention needs to be paid by ICANN to mitigate the costs tobrandowners of new gTLDs arising from the need to acquire defensive registrations. The GAC urges ICANN therefore toreach out more effectively to the business community to set out both the opportunities for corporate business and the cost
implications for brandholders of the expansion of the gTLD space.
The GAC notes the efforts to enhance through process the protection of rights owners as recounted in your letter of 5 Augustand developed in version 4 of the DAG.
In particular the GAC welcomes the expansion of the Trademark Clearing House to allow all nationally registered trademarks
including those not substantially reviewed. However, the GAC shares the views of the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO) that ICANN should ensure that the Trademark Clearing House operates on non-discriminatory terms
and not impose a validation fee depending on the source of the trademark. The GAC also recommends that the match criteria

for searches be extended to include results that combine a trademark and a generic term (e.g. “Kopdakcameras”).
The GAC also urges ICANN to ensure that all new rights protection mechanisms complement the existing UDRP mechanism.
The GAC has serious concerns with regard to the way in which the draft Uniform Rapid Suspension System whichgovernments had supported has evolved so as to require a much higher burden of proof while limiting marks eligible for a
URS claim to only those which have been subject to substantive review or validated in the Clearing House with the associatedcost and time implications. As a result, the GAC believes that the aim of achieving a light-weight mechanism has been
compromised with the successive drafting of the URS, to the extent that it no longer serves as a viable alternative forrightsholders to the UDRP in securing the timely suspension of domain names.
The ICANN Chair responded in his letter of 23 November to the GAC Chair as follows:
The Board understands the concerns expressed by the GAC regarding the potential costs of defensive registrations, and notes thatthe community spent a significant amount of time considering this issue, notably through the Implementation Recommendation
Team and the Special Trademark Issues Working Group. The Board considered the many recommendations and supports theresulting protections now outlined in the Applicant Guidebook. These include:
•
•
•
•
•

The requirement for all new registries to offer a Trademark Claims service or a sunrise period at launch.
The establishment of a Trademark Clearinghouse as a central repository for rights information, creating efficiencies for
TM holders, registries, and registrars.
The existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) continues to be available where complainant seekstransfer of names. Compliance with UDRP decisions is required in all new, as well as existing, gTLDs.
Implementation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system that provides a streamlined, lower-cost mechanism tosuspend infringing names.
The requirement for all new gTLD operators to provide access to “thick” Whois data. This access to registration data
aids those seeking responsible parties as part of rights enforcement activities.

Following further individual GAC member national consultations with domestic rights protection agencies and stakeholders,and due consideration ofa) the ICANN Chair’s letter of 23 November 2010;b) the non-adoption in the “final” version of the DAG of the GAC’s proposals for the TC and the URS contained in the
GAC Chair’s letter of 23 September 2010;

c) the briefing the GAC received in Cartagena from ICANN staff on the changes incorporated in the “final” version of
the DAG;and d) the GAC’s discussions in Cartagena with the GNSO;
at its meeting with the ICANN Board in Cartagena the GAC expressed that it continued to have fundamental concerns about
the inadequacy of the proposed rights protection mechanisms.
Furthermore, the Cartagena communiqué stated thatas a result of the GAC's exchange with the GNSO, the GAC is also mindful that major stakeholder groups within ICANN (suchas the Business and Intellectual Property constituencies) do not believe the most recent version of the DAG reflects theiradvice and concerns.

2. Root Zone Scaling
1.

Introduction

This scorecard summarizes the GAC’s remaining concerns that ICANN provide sufficient safeguards so that the expected scale andrate of change of introduction of new gTLDs will not have a negative impact on the security, stability and resilience of the DNS.
References are made to ICANN Chair’s letter to the GAC Chair of 23 November 2010 in response of the letter of 10th March 2010
from the GAC Chair (‘ICANN’s response’) and to and to the Draft Applicants Guidebook version 4 (‘DAG4’)

2.

Root growth control and monitoring / early warning system

In ICANN’s response reference is made to the intention (DAG4) to delegate 200 to 300 TLDs annually, and that in no case more than
1000 new gTLDs be added to the root zone in a year.
The GAC understands that the robustness of the root server system and the way it will react following substantive additions can only
be fully understood by the practice and experience of the first round. Therefore the establishment of a monitoring system, as
recommended by the community and taken on board by ICANN, is fully supported by the GAC. According to ICANN’s response “(itwill) ensure that changes relating to scaling of the root management systems don’t go unnoticed prior to those changes becoming anissue” This addresses the GAC’s advice that there should be a control mechanism to allow for the mitigation of any strain or unwanted
effects of a large scale introduction of new TLDs.
However, the GAC believes that the implications and processes needed to act upon the outcome of such an early warning system need
to be elaborated further in the Applicant Guidebook. The GAC accordingly now tables the following questions and proposals for the
Board’s consideration:
1. What will be the modus operandi when the system issues a warning that the introduction should slow down or even stopped?
2. There should be scenarios and system responses clearly set out so that ICANN reacts predictably and quickly when there areindicators that new additions and changes are straining the root zone system. The level of detriment should be graded anddescribed, with the resulting restorative measures outlined. These would include stopping further additions for defined periods,
more intensive monitoring and in extreme cases suspension of new gTLDs.
3. Such scenarios should be described in the Applicants Guidebook with detailed explanations of how applicants will be informed
about potential slowing down or even stopping of their application If the situations are defined and documented then applicantsshould also be advised of the consequences in certain cases.
The GAC recommends that the control mechanism should be carefully designed and there should be clearly understood (policy)
implications reflected in the Applicant Guidebook before ICANN launches the round to open up the gTLD space. In view of thewidely acknowledged unpredictability of all the effects of a massive introduction of gTLDs in the root zone system, the GAC also
believes that there should be an in depth evaluation of the impacts of the first introduction round on the root zone system followed bya public comment period before a decision is taken to start the second round. The monitoring system for this purpose should therefore
be fully operational from the start of the first round in order to deliver the necessary relevant data before the second round starts.
Therefore the GAC requests the Board,
4. to continue implementing a monitoring system and ensure that the processes that flow from its results are fully described in the
Application Guidebook before the start of the first application round;
5. not to launch a second round of applications (1) unless there are indications from monitoring the root system that the firstround did not in any way jeopardize the security and stability of the root zone system.
1

assuming the first one does not exceed 200- 300 application

3.

Operational and resource issues to avoid root change congestion and maintain continued integration of the system

The GAC expressed on several occasions its concern that the root change processes could face congestion at the operational level.
ICANN’s response made clear that the scaling effects can be absorbed by the root zone operators but that these effects are much more
likely to be felt within the context of ICANN’s internal systems, such as application processing, legal review, IANA process, etc.
Therefore the GAC remains concerned as to whether both ICANN’s internal systems and the resources of external actors can scale up
sufficiently to meet the demands in order to process 200 to 300 applications a year.
The GAC accordingly now tables the following questions for the Board’s consideration:
1. How will the necessary increase in resources be accomplished, is there flexibility to deal with changing demands, and how will
ICANN avoid the possibility that other activities will be impacted by the possible diversion of resources to processing new
gTLD applications?
2. How will ICANN address the specific needs of applicants from different, perhaps non-English speaking cultures, and withdifferent legal environments?
3. How quickly would ICANN expect to complete contract negotiations for new gTLDs in a potential situation of 200 to
300 simultaneous applications and evaluations?
4. Are all the external actors (IANA, USG, root server operators, etc) sufficiently informed about what is expected from them interms of work loadings and resources in order to fulfill their respective roles, in particular the pre-delegation checking,approvals, and implementation of potentially 200 to 300 root zone changes a year?
5. Following delegation of so many additional TLDs, what is ICANN’s projection for the administrative workload for ICANN
and IANA for processing requests for changes and additions to TLDs once they have been established in the root? What is
ICANN’s plan for resourcing these day-to-day operational functions, including staff requirements?

3. Geographic Names: Analysis of GAC’s DAG4 comments and ICANN’s answersa) The GAC underlines that country and territory names should be excluded from applications until the ccPDP.

The Board will not consider such applications in the first round.
• The GAC reiterates its understanding that the IDN ccPDP and the use of country and territory names are related. Therefore thequestion, whether country and territory names need to be excluded has to be reconsidered before the next application round.
The GAC notes that ICANN considers that the use of country and territory names in general is out of scope of the IDN ccPDP, andtherefore linking the two processes does not appear appropriate. ICANN therefore suggests that it is a possibility that the use ofcountry and territory names may be considered after the first round of gTLD applications. Modalities for subsequent rounds will be
determined by ICANN based on recommendations from the ICANN community and GAC Advice. It is important that GAC restates
advice on this issue; see Annex B to Nairobi Communiqué. The GACs main point was that strings that are a meaningful representation
or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be treated outside the gTLD process. If they should be considered as new TLDs,
they should be handled through a policy development process in ccNSO.
b) GAC reiterated its concern about insufficient protection of geographic names.
The Board does not refer to this concern.
For the GAC appropriate and free objection procedures would be acceptable to provide the protection of geographic names (see also cand e).

4. GAC’s position on “Definition of geographic names”
The public comment period allows free of charge comments on every applied for string. Individual governments as the entire GAC
can inform ICANN, which strings they consider to be geographic names. ICANN commits to process applications for strings thatgovernments consider to be geographic names only if the respective government does support or not object to the use of that string.
GAC recalls that in cases in which geographic names correspond with generic names or brands, such a regulation would not exclude
per se the use of generic names and brands as Top-Level Domains. It would, however, be in the area of responsibility of the adequate
government to define requirements and safeguards to prevent the use of those Top-Level Domains as geoTLDs.

5.

Providing opportunity for all stakeholders including those from developing countries

SUMMARY TABLE
A. GAC & ICANN Board Positions

No.
1.

Issue TopicGAC Position
Recommendationsof Supported
the
Joint
AC/SO
Working Group2.

Support on Technical ICANN to set technical and •operations and other other requirements, including
requirements
cost considerations, at areasonable and proportionate •level in order not to exclude
developing
country
stakeholders
fromparticipating in the new
gTLD-process•

3.

Concerns from theInternet
Government
Forum (IGF), Vilnius,
Lithuania

Letter from GAC to ICANN
23rd September 2010.
The GAC reiterates its strong
belief that the new gTLD
process should meet the global
public interest in promoting afully inclusive and diverse
Internet
communityandinfrastructure, consistent withtheAffirmationofCommitments. The GAC
therefore urges ICANN to set

ICANN Board Position
Supported

New gTLD process isdeveloped on a cost
recovery model
Experience gained fromfirst round will inform
decisions on fee levels,and the scope fordiscounts and subsidies
in subsequent rounds
Non-financial means ofsupport are being madeavailable to deservingcases.

Remarks
Board encouraged to adopt therecommendations

No.

Issue TopicGAC Position
ICANN Board Position
technical
and
other
requirements, including costconsiderations, at a reasonable
and proportionate level in
order
not
to
excludestakeholders from developing
countries from participating in
the new gTLD process. Key
documents
producedby
ICANN must be available inall UN languages within areasonable period in advanceof the launch of the gTLD
round. The GAC strongly
recommends
thatthecommunications strategy forthe new gTLD round be
developed with this issue of
inclusiveness as a key priority.

Remarks

B.

Developing Countries/Communities Position.

No.

Issue Topic

Community Position

1.

Roll out of new Rolling out new gTLD’s andgTLD’s and IDN’s.
IDNs was done in a hurrywithout basis on a carefulfeasibility study on theimpact that this rollout willhaveondeveloping
countries

2.

Eligibility for support Developing
communities
strongly
believethat
entrepreneur
applicantsfrom developing countries,
where the market is notwide
enoughforareasonable profit making
industry, are eligible forsupport.
The
AfricanCommunity believe:• Entrepreneur applicantsfrom African countries are

Joint SO/AC working
Group Recommendation.

ICANN Board Position

The position of ICANN isthat in no way this is amassive roll out and infact there have been only
900 applications for new
gTLD for a year and only
200 of them will be
reviewed. ICANN holds
the position that it has
been fair and inclusive inits decision and that also it
will help any country inthis process
Whoshouldreceive ICANN
board
is
Support?
considering the proposals• Governments, Municipal from the SO/AC joint
working group.
and local authorities fromdeveloping countries• Non-governmental
Organizations (NGOs),
civil society and not-forprofit organizations• Limited
Community

Remarks

No.

Issue Topic

Community Position
eligible for support.
• Deem that Civil society,
NGOs and non for profit
organizations in Africa are
the most in need of suchsupport,• Believe that support is ofutmost importance for
geographic,
culturallinguistic,
andmoregenerally
community
based applications.
• Support to new gTLD
applicants in Africa beprioritized• Support to be provided toapplicants of new gTLDs
in Africa should include,
financial, linguistic, legal
and technical• Proposed cost reduction:• Proposed that the reduced
cost be paid incrementally,• Applications
tobeaccordingtotheJoint SO/AC working
ICANN Board Position
Group Recommendation.
based applications suchas cultural, linguistic andethnic• Applications in languages
whose presence on the
web is limited• Local entrepreneurs, inthose markets where
market constraints makenormalbusiness
operations more difficult• Applicants located inemerging economies
Type of support• Cost Reduction Support• Sponsorship and otherfunding support• Modifications to thefinancial continued
operation instrument
obligation• Technical support• Logistical support• Obligation Technical

Remarks

No.

Issue Topic

Community Position
appropriate
businessmodels.
• Supplementary support
andadditional
cost
reductionfor
gTLDs
applications from Africancountries.

Joint SO/AC working
Group Recommendation.
support for applicants inoperating or qualifying tooperate a gTLD
• gTLDs Exception to therules requiring separationof the Registry andRegistrar function

ICANN Board Position

Remarks