ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
4 March 2011
This document contains the ICANN Board's notes on the "GAC indicative scorecard on new gTLD outstanding
issues" of 23 February 2011. Each GAC scorecard item is noted with a "1A", "1B", or "2":
 "1A" indicates that the Board's position is consistent with GAC advice as described in the Scorecard.
 "1B" indicates that the Board's position is consistent with GAC advice as described in the Scorecard inprinciple, with some revisions to be made.
 "2" indicates that the Board's current position is not consistent with GAC advice as described in the
Scorecard, and further discussion with the GAC in San Francisco is required.
Item #
1.
1.

2.

GAC Scorecard Actionable Item
The objection procedures including therequirements for governments to pay fees
Delete the procedures related to “Limited
Public Interest Objections” in Module 3.

Procedures for the review of sensitive strings
2.1.1 1. String Evaluation and Objections
Page 1 of 34

Position

Notes

1B

The GAC indicated in Brussels that its
concern relates to requiring
governments to use this objection
process. The Board and GAC therefore
agreed that it would be consistent with
GAC advice to leave the provision for
Limited Public Interest Objections in the
Guidebook for general purposes, but
the GAC (as a whole) would not be
obligated to use the objection process
in order to give advice.

1B

A procedure for GAC review will be

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
Procedure
Amend the following procedures related to
the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 toinclude review by governments, via the GAC.
At the beginning of the Initial Evaluation
Period, ICANN will provide the GAC with adetailed summary of all new gTLD
applications.
Any GAC member may raise an objection to a
proposed string for any reason. The GAC willconsider any objection raised by a GAC
member or members, and agree on advice toforward to the ICANN Board.

2.1.2 GAC advice could also suggest measures tomitigate GAC concerns. For example, the GAC
could advise that additional scrutiny andconditions should apply to strings that could
impact on public trust (e.g. ‘.bank’).

2

2.1.3 In the event the Board determines to take anaction that is not consistent with GAC advice
pursuant to Article XI Section 2.1 j and k, theBoard will provide a rationale for its decision.

1A

Page 2 of 34

incorporated into the new gTLD
process. The GAC may review theposted applications and provide advice
to the ICANN Board. As discussed with
the GAC, such advice would be
provided within the 45-day period after
posting of applications, with
documentation according toaccountability and transparency
principles including whether the advice
from the GAC is supported by aconsensus of GAC members (whichshould include identification of thegovernments raising/supporting theobjection).
If the GAC were to provide suggestedchanges to mitigate concerns, we areconcerned that the advice would leadto ad hoc changes to the evaluation
process based on subjective
assessments.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

2.2

2. Expand Categories of Community-based
Strings
Amend the provisions and procedures
contained in Modules 1 and 3 to clarify thefollowing:
2.2.1 “Community-based strings” include those that
purport to represent or that embody aparticular group of people or interests basedon historical, cultural or social components ofidentity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity,religion, belief, culture or particular social
origin or group, political opinion, membershipof a national minority, disability, age, and/or alanguage or linguistic group (non exhaustive).
In addition, those strings that refer toparticular sectors, such as those subject tonational 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.

Page 3 of 34

2

Any community is eligible to designate
its application as community-based.
Bona fide community applicants are
eligible for preference in the event ofcontention for a string.
Also, ICANN has provided a community
objection process in the event that
there is "substantial opposition to it
from a significant portion of thecommunity." (A community objection
may be lodged against any application,
whether or not it is designated ascommunity-based.)
The GAC's list of groups and sectors
appears to be an example of the kindsof communities that may be able toachieve standing to raise a community
objection.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

2.2.2 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 opportune
evidence of support or non-objection fromthe relevant authority/ies that the applicant is
the appropriate or agreed entity for purposesof managing the TLD.

2

2.2.3 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.

2

Page 4 of 34

ICANN will review the standards for thecommunity objection process to ensurethat they are appropriate. Revised
standards will be included in theforthcoming version of the Applicant
Guidebook.
The GAC’s suggestion would requireapplicants to designate themselves as acommunity, even if they might not be.
Strings may have many meanings, not
all of which might implicate acommunity.
Reducing the context for how strings
may be used is contrary to an important
goal of the new gTLD program, which isto help encourage competition,
innovation and consumer choice.
The community objection process isintended to deal with applications
where "there is substantial opposition"
to the application "from a significant
portion of the community."This GAC advice seems to suggest that

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
unless everyone can agree on an
appropriate applicant for a given string
then the string should not be approved.
Again, this seems contrary to the goalof increasing competition and providing
additional choice to all consumers.

2.2.4 The requirement that objectors must
demonstrate “material detriment to thebroader Internet community” should be
amended to reflect simply “material
detriment”, as the former represents an
extremely vague standard that may prove
impossible to satisfy.

1B

2.2.5 Individual governments that choose to fileobjections to any proposed “communitybased” string should not be required to pay
fees.

1B

Page 5 of 34

Further, the phrase "sufficiently
contentious" is vague and it is unclear
who the GAC is suggesting would needto agree on an "appropriate manager."Thus, this suggestion does not seem tobe workable in light of the goals of the
new gTLD program.
Staff will return with revised wording toaddress this concern.

ICANN will investigate a mechanism forthe forthcoming round under which
GAC members could be exempted frompaying fees for objections in somecircumstances (subject to constraints

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
imposed by budget and otherconsiderations).
3.

Root Zone Scaling
3.1.1 The Board should continue implementing amonitoring 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, and1A

Root zone monitoring systems are
currently in place. ICANN will workwith root zone operators to identify
relevant reporting metrics and establish
a process to report such metrics to the
GAC and the Internet community.
Furthermore, a process will be
implemented that enables thedelegation of TLDs to be slowed or
stopped in the event there is a strain to
the root zone system.

3.1.2 b) that the processes and possible resulting
restorative measures that flow from its results
are fully described in the Application
Page 6 of 34

ICANN also commits to review theeffects of the new gTLD program on theoperations of the root zone system, anddefer the delegations in the second
round until it is determined that thedelegations in the first round did notjeopardize root zone system security or
stability.
See 3.1.1 above.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

3.2

Guidebook before the start of the first
application round.
The Board commits to defer the launch of asecond round or batch of applications unlessan evaluation shows that there are indications
from monitoring the root system etc. that afirst (limited) round did not in any way
jeopardize the security and stability of theroot zone system.

See 3.1.1 above.

3.3

The Board commits to make the second roundor batch of applications contingent on a clean
sheet from full technical and administrative
assessment of impact of the first round withrecommendations which should go out topublic comment for approval.

See 3.1.1 above.

3.4

The Board commits to avoid the possibility
that other activities will be impacted by thepossible diversion of resources to processing
new gTLD applications.

ICANN commits that the operation of
the IANA functions and ICANN's
coordination of the root zone system
will not be negatively affected.

3.5

The Board should ensure that ICANN caneffectively address the specific needs ofapplicants from different, perhaps non-English
speaking cultures, and with different legal
environments.

See note on 3.4 above.

Page 7 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

3.6

The Board should monitor the pace andeffectiveness of ICANN’s management ofcontract negotiations for new gTLDs in a
potential situation of 200 to 300 simultaneous
applications and evaluations.

1A

3.7

The Board is confident that all relevant actors(IANA, root server operators, etc) aresufficiently informed about what is expectedfrom them in terms of work loadings andresources in order to fulfil their respectiveroles, in particular the pre delegation
checking, approvals, implementation ofpotentially 200 to 300 root zone changes ayear and expected post-delegation changes.

1A

4.
4.1

Market and Economic Impacts
Amend the final Draft Applicant Guidebook toincorporate the following:
Criteria to facilitate the weighing of thepotential costs and benefits to the
public in the evaluation and award of
new gTLDs.

Page 8 of 34

2

It is not planned that information
gathered as part of the application will
be used to predict the net benefit of
the prospective TLD – that would be too
speculative to be of real value.
However, during the discussions
between the GAC and the Board in
Brussels, the GAC indicated that theweighing of costs and benefits should

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
instead take place as part of the newgTLD program review as specified in
section 9.3 of the Affirmation ofCommitments.
As clarified through the discussions
with the GAC in Brussels, ICANN willcontinue to explore with the GAC
during the ICANN Public meeting inMarch 2011what data might be
included in the application to provide
useful input to later economic studies
and community analysis.
ICANN will continue to work to ensurethat post-delegation disputemechanisms adequately address thisconcern.

4.2

A requirement that new gTLD applicants
provide information on the expected benefitsof the proposed gTLD, as well as informationand proposed operating terms to eliminate orminimize costs to registrants and consumers.

1B

4.3

Due diligence or other operating restrictions
to ensure that Community-based gTLDs will infact serve their targeted communities and will
not broaden their operations in a manner thatmakes it more likely for the registries toimpose costs on existing domain owners inother TLDs.

1A

5.

Registry – Registrar Separation
Amend the proposed new registry agreement
2
ICANN sought to implement a
to restrict cross-ownership between registries
marketplace model that would enhanceand registrars, in those cases where it can becompetition, opportunities fordetermined that the registry does have, or isinnovation and increase choice forlikely to obtain, market power.
consumers while preventing abuses incases where the registry could wield
Page 9 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

6.

market power. While lifting restrictions
on cross-ownership, ICANN reserves theright to refer issues to appropriatecompetition authorities if there areapparent abuses of market power. As
previously resolved by the Board,registry agreements will include
requirements and restrictions on any
inappropriate or abusive conductarising out of registry-registrar crossownership, including without
limitations provisions protecting against
misuse of data or violations of a registrycode of conduct.
Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue
6.1.1 1. Rights Protection: Trademark Clearing
1B
ICANN will update the Applicant
House (TC)
Guidebook to permit the Trademark
Clearinghouse to include intellectual
The TC should be permitted to accept all types
property rights for marks in addition toof intellectual property rights that areregistered trademarks and thoserecognized under the national law of theprotected by treaty or statute. Of thosecountry or countries under which the registrymarks, registry operators will beis organized or has its principal place of
required to recognize national,
business. The only mandatory requirement forsupranational and marks protected by
new registry operators will be to recognize
treaty and statute as eligible for theirnational and supranational trademark
sunrise and Trademark claims services
registrations issued before June 26, 2008 and(subject to proof of use as described
Page 10 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
court-validated common law trademarks.

below relating to sunrise services).
The Clearinghouse must clearly notewhen entering the marks into the
database, which marks are registeredtrademarks.
The proposed date cut-off will not beutilized as discussed with the GAC.
The IRT and STI suggested an either/or
approach. Please advise reasons foradvocating both.

6.1.2 Sunrise services and IP claims should both bemandatory for registry operators because they
serve different functions with IP claims serving
a useful notice function beyond theintroductory phase.

2

6.1.3 IP claims services and sunrise services should
go beyond exact matches to include exact
match plus key terms associated with goods orservices identified by the mark) e.g.
“Kodakonlineshop”) and typographicalvariations identified by the rights holder.

2

ICANN recognizes that trademark
holders have an interest in receiving
notification in the event that strings areregistered that include their mark and a
key term associated with goods orservices identified by the mark. Thisremains an area of discussion.

6.1.4 All trademark registrations of national andsupranational effect, regardless of whether

1B

All trademark registrations of nationaland supranational effect, regardless ofPage 11 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
examined on substantive or relative grounds,
must be eligible to participate in the prelaunch sunrise mechanisms.

whether examined on substantive or
relative grounds, will be eligible forinclusion in the Trademark
Clearinghouse and for the Sunrise/TM
Claims service subject to the following.
Registries that utilize a sunrise process
must require submission of evidence ofuse of the mark by holders of all
trademark registrations, regardless ofthe jurisdiction of registration.
Use of the trademark may bedemonstrated by providing adeclaration from the trademark holder
along with one specimen of current
use. Further discussion should takeplace relating to proof of use.

6.1.5 Protections afforded to trademark
registrations do not extend to applications forregistrations, marks within any opposition
period or registered marks that were thesubject of successful invalidation, cancellation
or rectification proceedings.

1A

6.1.6 The IP claims service should notify thepotential domain name registrant of the rights

1A

Page 12 of 34

Agreed. Note: the notification to therights holder will be sent promptly after

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
holder’s claim and also notify the rights holderof the registrant’s application for the domain
name.
6.1.7.1 The TC should continue after the initial launchof each gTLD.

2

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

1B

6.2.1 2. Rights Protection: Uniform Rapid
Suspension (URS):

1A

Significantly reduce the timescales. See
attached table for proposed changes.
Page 13 of 34

the potential registrant has
acknowledged the IP Claim andproceeds with the application toregister the name.
The Trademark Clearinghouse will be an
ongoing operation. The Sunrise and TM
Claims service will operate only atlaunch (in accordance with therecommendations of the IRT and the
STI). Trademark holders will continue tobe able to subscribe to "watch" services
that will be able to utilize theCentralized Zone File Access system tobe able to efficiently monitor
registrations across multiple gTLDs.
Rights holders will pay the Trademark
Clearinghouse when the rights holders
register their marks, and the registry
will pay when administering its
sunrise/trademark claims service.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

6.2.2 The complaint should be simplified byreplacing the 5,000 word free text limit +unlimited attachments [para 1.2] with asimple pro forma standardised wording withthe opportunity for not more than 500 wordsof freeform text and limit the attachments tocopies of the offending website.

1A

Note: The word limit will not apply torespondents.

6.2.3 Decisions should be taken by a suitably
qualified ‘Examiner’ and not require panel
appointments.

1A

Examiners will be appointed by the URS
Provider. Only one Examiner will be
appointed per URS proceeding.

6.2.4 Where the complaint is based upon a valid
registration, the requirement that thejurisdiction of registration incorporate
substantive examination (paras 1.2f (i) and8.1a) should be removed.

1B

There is no requirement that any
registration of a trademark must
include substantive evaluation.
Each trademark registration must be
supported by evidence of use in order
to be the basis of a URS complaint.
Use of the trademark may bedemonstrated by providing adeclaration from the trademark holder
along with one specimen of current
use. Further discussion should takeplace relating to proof of use.

Page 14 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
6.2.5 If, as is expected in the majority of cases,
there is no response from the registrant, thedefault should be in favour of the complainant
and the website locked. The examination of
possible defences in default cases according topara 8.4(2) would otherwise give an
unjustified privilege to the non-cooperating
defendant.

1B

An examiner will review the merits ofeach complaint to ensure that thestandard is met, even in the event of a
default. The examiner will not be
required to imagine possible defenses –this provision will be removed from the
Guidebook.

6.2.6 The standard of proof (para 8.2) should belowered from “clear and convincing evidence”
to a preponderance of evidence”.

2

The principle of the URS is that it should
only apply to clear-cut cases of abuse.

6.2.7 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) (“bona fide”) and b) “been commonly
known by the domain name”) can hardly allow
a domain name owner to prevail over theholders of colliding trademarks.

2

6.2.8 A ‘loser pays’ mechanism should be added.

2Page 15 of 34"Clear and convincing" is the burden of
proof that was recommended by the
IRT and endorsed by the STI.
The standard applied for the URS isbased on the UDRP standard. Bothrequire a finding of bad faith.

A loser pays mechanism was

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
investigated, but ultimately was not
adopted. The UDRP does not have aloser-pays mechanism. It is unlikely thatcomplainants would ever be able toeffectively collect based on clear-cut
cases of abuse, since the names inquestion will already have beensuspended. Notwithstanding, ICANN
will monitor URS procedures oncelaunched to see whether a loser pays
mechanism or some other methodology
to reimburse mark holders is feasible.
6.2.9 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 torights holders).
6.2.10.1 However, there should be a clear rationale forappeal by the complainant.

Page 16 of 34

2

Due process principles require thatevery registrant should always have theopportunity to present a defense.

2

The Board has asked the GAC to clarify
if it intended to refer to "complainant"(as opposed to respondent) in thisstatement. Every appeal will be decided
de novo, and therefore the appeal
process does not require a separate
evaluation of the rationale for filing theappeal.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
6.2.10.2 The time for filing an appeal in default cases
must be reduced from 2 years to not morethan 6 months.

2

6.2.10.3 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.
6.2.11 The URS filing fee should be US$200-US$300
and minor administrative deficiencies should
not result in dismissal of the URS complaint.

1A

6.2.12 A successful complainant should have theright of first refusal for transfer of the
disputed domain name after the suspension
period so that the complainant is not forced topursue a UDRP proceeding to secure atransfer.

Page 17 of 34

1B

1A

The IRT originally suggested a URS
without any appeal process. The STI
suggested the inclusion of an appeal
process (without any mention of alimitation on the ability to seek relief
from a default). In response tocomments, the Applicant Guidebook
was revised to include a two-year
limitation period on the opportunity toseek relief from a default.

ICANN will negotiate with URS service
providers for the best prices andservices. The fee range mentioned will
be a target.
A successful complainant should havethe right of first refusal to register the
disputed domain name after the
expiration of the registration period
and any extension of the suspension
period. This right of first refusal upon
expiration will not diminish theregistration period, or the period oftime available for the registrant to seek

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
relief from default, or in any other way
harm the rights of any registrant.
As recommended by the IRT, the URS
only applies to registrations that are
identical or confusingly similar toprotected marks as described in the
Guidebook. As noted above, the URS is
only intended to apply to clear-cut
cases of abuse.

6.2.13 The URS should go beyond ‘exact’ matches
and should at least include exact +goods/other generic words e.g.
“Kodakonlineshop”.

2

6.3.1 3. Rights Protection: Post-delegation Dispute
Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)

2This was the standard developed by the
IRT.

2

The registrants are not parties to theproceedings, thus keeping a registrant
from using the domain name or
stripping the name from the registrant
should be effected through analternative proceeding, such as URS or
UDRP. Note that to the extent
registrants have been shown to be
officers, directors, agents, employees,
or entities under common control with

The standard of proof be changed from “clear
and convincing evidence” to a“preponderance of evidence”.
6.3.2 The second level registrations that form theunderlying basis of a successful PDDRP
complaint should be deleted.

Page 18 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

6.3.3 The requirement of “substantive examination”
in para 9.2.1(i) should be deleted.

1B

a registry operator, then deletion ofregistrations may be a recommended
remedy.
There is no requirement that any
registration of a trademark must
include substantive evaluation.
Each trademark registration must be
supported by evidence of use in order
to be the basis of a PDDRP complaint.

6.3.4 A new para 6.1 a) be added: “being identicalto the complainant’s mark in relation to goods
and services which are identical to those forwhich the complainant’s mark is registered.
This would not apply if the registrant has abetter right to the mark. In particular theregistrant will in normal circumstances have abetter right if the mark has been registeredprior to the registration of the complainant’smark.”
Page 19 of 34(?)

Use of the trademark may bedemonstrated by providing adeclaration from the trademark holder
along with one specimen of current
use. Further discussion should takeplace relating to proof of use.
(Clarification from the GAC requested.)

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

6.3.5 Regarding the second level (para 6.2), theregistrant operator should be liable if he/she
acts in bad faith or is grossly negligent inrelation to the circumstances listed in para6.a)-d).

2

6.3.6 The requirement in para 7.2.3 lit.d) that thecomplainant 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.

2

6.3.7 Para 19.5 should be amended as follows: “Incases 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 inline with the Determination.

1A

6.4.1 4. Consumer Protection

1B

Amend the "Maintain an abuse point ofcontact" paragraph in the DAG to include
government agencies which address
consumer protection:
Page 20 of 34

Changing the standard from requiring"affirmative conduct" to “grossnegligence” would effectively create a
new policy imposing liability on
registries based on actions ofregistrants.
The current requirement is in place toprovide the registry with a reasonableamount of time to investigate and takeappropriate action if a trademark
holder notifies the registry that there
may be infringing names in the registry.
ICANN agrees that it will impose
appropriate remedies that are "in line"with the determination. It should be
noted however that ICANN is ultimately
responsible for determining theappropriate remedy.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

7.
7.1

6.4.2 A registry operator must assist law
enforcement, government agencies andagencies endorsed by governments with theirenquiries about abuse complaints concerning
all names registered in the TLD, including
taking timely action, as required, to resolve
abuse issues.

1B

6.4.3 Ensure that ICANN’s contract compliancefunction is adequately resourced to build
confidence in ICANN’s ability to enforce
agreements between ICANN and registries
and registrars.

1A

6.4.4 Vetting of certain strings
gTLD strings which relate to any generally
regulated industry (e.g. .bank, .dentist, .law)should be subject to more intensive vetting
than other non-geographical gTLDs.

2

ICANN agrees that the registry operator
must assist appropriately in law
enforcement investigations. Theremight be a difference between local
and International law enforcement
agencies. There is a question about
whether this requirement would bestronger than what is already requiredby law. Changes to the Guidebook will
be made after consideration of thoseissues.
Augment ICANN's contractual
compliance function with additional
resources to support the program ofcontracts between ICANN and theregistries and registrars.

ICANN has requested clarification fromthe GAC of the intended meaning of"generally regulated industries", but
generally believes that a priori
categorization of strings is inherently
problematic.
Post-Delegation Disputes
Change the wording in the sample letter of
1B
ICANN will modify the suggested
Government support in AG back to thewording of the letter of support or nonwording in DAGv4 and keeping the new
objection, and make clear its
Page 21 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
paragraph 7.13 of the new gTLD registryagreement with the changed wording from“may implement” to “will comply”. E.g change
the wording from “may implement” back to“will comply” with a legally binding decision in
the relevant jurisdiction.

7.2

In addition describe in the AG that ICANN willcomply with a legally binding decision in therelevant jurisdiction where there has been adispute between the relevant government or
public authority and registry operator.

Page 22 of 34

1B

commitments to governments inadditional text of the Applicant
Guidebook. However, the registryagreement will continue to indicatethat ICANN "may implement" instead of"will comply" with such decisions forlegal reasons. As discussed previouslywith the GAC, ICANN’s commitment tocomply with legally binding decisions ismade to governments, not to registries,
Therefore, it is not necessarily in theinterests of ICANN, or of governments,
to place that obligation in registryagreements, giving registry operators
the ability, and perhaps duty, to force
ICANN to implement decisions in everycase. (ICANN has a mechanism toenforce its contracts with registry
operators.)
The suggestion to change "court
decision" to "legally binding decision"requires further discussion as it may insome cases amount to a redelegation
request. Also, there could be multiple
jurisdictions that have given theirsupport to one application (e.g.,multiple "Springfield"s), thus, it may notICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
be appropriate to implement a
particular action based on one suchdecision.
8.

Use of geographic names:
8.1.1.1 1. Definition of geographic names
Implement a free of charge objection
mechanism would allow governments toprotect their interest

8.1.1.2 and to define names that are to be consideredgeographic names.

8.1.2 This implies that ICANN will exclude anPage 23 of 34

1B

2

1B

ICANN will investigate a mechanism forthe forthcoming round under which
GAC members could be exempted frompaying fees for objections in somecircumstances (subject to constraints
imposed by budget and otherconsiderations).
The process relies on pre-existing lists
of geographic names for determining
which strings require the support or
non-objection of a government.
Governments and other representativesof communities will continue to be able
to utilize the community objection
process to address attempted
misappropriation of community labels.
ICANN will continue to explore thepossibility of pre-identifying using
additional authoritative lists ofgeographic identifiers that are
published by recognized globalorganizations.
ICANN will continue to rely on pre-

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
applied for string from entering the new gTLD
process when the government formally statesthat this string is considered to be a name forwhich this country is commonly known as.

8.1.3 Review the proposal in the DAG in order toensure that this potential [city nameapplicants avoiding government support
requirement by stating that use is for noncommunity purposes] does not arise.
Provide further explanations on statementsthat applicants are required to provide a
description/purpose for the TLD, and toadhere to the terms and condition ofsubmitting an application including confirmingthat all statements and representations
contained in the application are true andaccurate.

2

8.1.4 Governments should not be required to pay afee for raising objections to new gTLD
applications. Implement a free objection
mechanism would allow governments toprotect their interest.

1B

Page 24 of 34

existing lists of geographic names fordetermining which strings require thesupport or non-objection of agovernment. This is in the interest ofproviding a transparent and predictableprocess for all parties. (See related note
above.)
There are post-delegation mechanisms
to address this situation. In addition,the "early warning" opportunity willoffer an additional means to indicate
community objections.

ICANN will investigate a mechanism forthe forthcoming round under which
GAC members could be exempted frompaying fees for objections in somecircumstances (subject to constraints
imposed by budget and otherICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

8.2.1 2. Further requirements regarding
geographic names
The GAC clarifies that it is a question ofnational sovereignty to decide which level ofgovernment 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 forregional 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.

1A

8.2.2 According to the current DAG applications will
be suspended (pending resolution by theapplicants), if there is more than one
application for a string representing a certain
geographic name, and the applications haverequisite 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

1B

Page 25 of 34

considerations).
This principle is agreed, and this can beclarified in the Guidebook. ICANN
invites governments to identify
appropriate points of contact on thisissue.

ICANN will continue to suspend
processing of applications withinconsistent/conflicting support, butwill allow multiple applicants all
endorsed by the same authority to go
forward, when requested by thegovernment.
This area needs further discussion on
the potential situations that could lead

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
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.
9.

to redelegation requests.

Legal Recourse for Applications:Seek legal advice in major jurisdiction whether
1A
As discussed with the GAC, ICANN hassuch a provision might cause legal conflicts –examined these legal questions
in particular but not limited to US andcarefully and considering the results ofEuropean competition laws. If ICANN explainsthese examinations still adheres to thisthat it has already examined these legal
provision. ICANN will clarify in thequestions carefully and considering the results
Applicant Guidebook that: if ICANNof these examinations still adheres to thatdeviates from its agreed processes inprovision, GAC will no longer insist on its
coming to a decision, ICANN's internal
position. However, the GAC expects that
accountability mechanisms will allow
ICANN will continue to adhere to the rule ofcomplaints to be heard.
law and follow broad principles of natural
justice. For example, if ICANN deviates fromits agreed processes in coming to a decision,
Page 26 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
the GAC expects that ICANN will provide anappropriate mechanism for any complaints tobe heard.
10.
10.1

Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries
Main issues
TBD
ICANN’s Board recognized the
1. Cost Considerations
importance of an inclusive New gTLD
Set technical and other requirements,
Program and issued a Resolution
including cost considerations, at a reasonable
forming a Joint Working Group (JASand proportionate level in order not toWG) which is underway. ICANN would
exclude stakeholders from developing
like to receive the report of the JAS WG
countries from participating in the new gTLD
as soon as possible. JAS WG isprocess.
requested to provide a possible
deadline for his work during the ICANN
meeting in SFO allowing the Board toact.
It is noted that one of the challenges indeveloping support mechanisms forapplicants is to ensure that suchsupport is actually received by those
applicants with the most need, rather
than being used advantageously byother participants. This issue has also
been taken into account in the work of
the JAS WG.

Page 27 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

10.2.1 2. Language diversity
Key documents produced by ICANN must be
available in all UN languages within areasonable period in advance of the launch of
the gTLD round.

1A

10.2.2 The GAC strongly recommends that thecommunications strategy for the new gTLD
round be developed with this issue of
inclusiveness as a key priority.

1A

10.3

3. Technical and logistics support

1B

10.4

4. Outreach – as per Joint AC/SO
recommendations
5. Joint AC/SO Working Group on support for

1A

10.5

Page 28 of 34

TBD

The minimum technical requirementsfor operating a registry are expected tobe consistent across applications.
Some documents are already available
in the 6 UN languages. The Final
Application Guidebook will be also indue course, and the web site will beorganize to find easily all the
documents available in each language.

ICANN has agreed to provide certain
mechanisms for technical and logisticalsupport, such as assisting with matchingneeds to providers. ICANN is also
considering setting up regional help
desks to provide more responsive andrelevant technical support to new gTLD
applicants in developing countries.

This item from the GAC Scorecard

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
new gTLD applicants.
GAC urged ICANN to adopt recommendationsof the Joint AC/SO Working Group.

10.6

6. Applications from Governments or
National authorities (especially municipal
councils and provincial authorities) – special
consideration for applications fromdeveloping countries
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 a reasonable andproportionate level in order not to exclude
developing country stakeholders fromparticipating in the new gTLD-process. Key
documents should be available in all UN
languages. The GAC urges that thecommunications and outreach 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 thenPage 29 of 34

TBD

appears to reflect the interim report of
the JAS WG. ICANN is awaiting their
final report. (ICANN would like toreceive the report of the JAS WG assoon as possible.)This set of issues overlaps with and isaddressed in the other items in thissection.

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
proposal of single-fee requirement, a costbased 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 anddeveloping 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 scopefor 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
Page 30 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
per calendar year), and charge theRegistry- Level Transaction Fee only($0.25 per domain name registration or
renewal).
ii. Proposed that the reduced cost be paid
incrementally, which will give theapplicants/communities from developing
countries more time to raise money, andinvestors 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 supportinggTLD applicants in communities fromdeveloping countries will be a milestone tothe development of the overall Internet
community in Africa and other developing
regions.
10.7

A. Other Developing world Community
comments
Rolling out new gTLD and IDNs was done in ahurry and without basis on a careful feasibility
study on the impact that this rollout will haveon developing countries. For somePage 31 of 34

1B

ICANN is investigating and intends toprovide mechanisms for assisting withmatching needs to providers, and willcontinue to investigate mechanisms forproviding additional forms of support(such as providing documents in

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
representatives, this is a massive roll out ofgTLDs 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 todeveloping countries.
11.

additional languages beyond the official
U.N. languages).

Law enforcement due diligence recommendations [to amend the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué] (Note: ICANN will provide an update on thestatus of the RAA-related recommendations from law enforcement)
11.1
Include other criminal convictions as criteria
1B
ICANN accepts the principle thatfor disqualification, such as Internet-related
screening should be as effective as
crimes (felony or misdemeanor) or drugs.
possible. ICANN is willing to meet withlaw enforcement and other experts toensure that all available expertise isfocused on this issue. (ICANN notes
however that there is no consistentdefinition of criminal behavior acrossmultiple jurisdictions, and the existing
proposed Applicant Guidebook
consciously targets "crimes of trust".)11.2.1 Assign higher weight to applicants offering the
1B
ICANN could consider providing extra
highest levels of security to minimize thepoints in some aspects of thepotential for malicious activity, particularly for
qualification evaluation scoring process.
those strings that present a higher risk of(ICANN notes however that a priori
serving as venues for criminal, fraudulent or
categorization of strings is inherently
illegal conduct (e.g. such as those related toproblematic.)
Page 32 of 34

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard

11.3

children, health-care, financial services, etc.)
Add domestic screening services, local to theapplicant, to the international screening
services.

1B

11.4

Add criminal background checks to the Initial
Evaluation

1B

11.5

Amend the statement that the results of due
diligence efforts will not be posted to a

1B

Page 33 of 34

ICANN accepts the principle thatscreening should be as effective as
possible. ICANN is willing to meet withlaw enforcement and other experts toensure that all available expertise isfocused on this issue. (ICANN is mindfulthat this particular recommendation
could lead applicants to locate incertain regions in order to game thedepth of domestic screening.
International screening is likely toinclude the reports of local agencies
and could therefore be duplicative.)
ICANN accepts the principle thatscreening should be as effective as
possible. ICANN is willing to meet withlaw enforcement and other experts toensure that all available expertise isfocused on this issue. (ICANN notes that
there is no consistent definition of
criminal behavior across multiple
jurisdictions, and the existing proposed
Applicant Guidebook already addresses
serious crimes of trust.)
ICANN will explore possible ways tomake results public, but is concerned

ICANN Board Notes on the GAC New gTLDs Scorecard
positive commitment to make such results
publicly available
11.6

12.
12.1

that posting such information poses
concerns about privacy that should be
explored further.
Maintain requirements that WHOIS data be
1A
From the Affirmation of Commitments:
accurate and publicly available.
"ICANN additionally commits toenforcing its existing policy relating to
WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such
existing policy requires that ICANN
implement measures to maintaintimely, unrestricted and public accessto accurate and complete WHOIS
information, including registrant,
technical, billing, and administrative
contact information."
The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered
controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names)
Reconsider its objection to an “early warning”
1B
The principle of an early warning is
opportunity for governments to review
already included in the Guidebook. The
potential new gTLD strings and to advise
exact process needs to be discussed
applicants whether their proposed strings
further – please see the Board’s notes
would be considered controversial or to raise
above with respect to the GAC’s advice
national sensitivities.
on “Procedures for the review ofsensitive strings.”

Page 34 of 34

Item

Subpoints

1A

1B

2

1

1

2

8

1

3

8

8

4

3

1

5

1

6.1

8

2

3

3

6.2

15

5

3

7

6.3

7

1

1

4

6.4

4

1

2

1

7

2

8

7

1

9

1

1

10

8

3

2

11

6

1

5

12

1

Totals

80

?

1
3

4

1

1
1

1

2
4

2
3

1
25

28

23

9