[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Fwd: Subsequent Procedures PDP CC2 Response

[Mark Carvell]

Re-sent with corrected typos:

Mark Carvell, United Kingdom Representative on ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee, submits the following responses to the CC2
questionnaire.

*Application fees*

Q 1.4.1  The same break even and cost neutral  principle should be applied
to any subsequent new gTLD process, i.e. the process to expand further the
domain name system should not be driven by the aim of generating additional
revenues for the benefit of the ICANN community.

Q 1.4.2  and 1.4.3  Despite some late-commissioned economic analysis, there
was no clearly understood or predictable market expectation of the volume
of take up for the current round with the result that the volume of
fees received far exceeded the basis used for determining the US$185k fee
level.This level was generally considered appropriate for recovering the
anticipated historical costs of preparing for the round, providing a
discrete legal fund resource and for setting an appropriate bar to deter
frivolous and wholly inadequately prepared and under-resourced applications.

For a future process, the historical costs will be lower in view of the
experience and established and fully developed mechanisms from the first
fully open round. The fee can as a consequence be considerably lower
- perhaps by 50% -  while still maintaining a bar sufficient to ensure that
all applications received are coherent and worth dedicating resources for
evaluation and processing.

Q 1.6.1 The principal problem that would arise from a continuous process is
that all applications would be treated on a first come first serve basis
that would put some applicants for the same string at a serious
disadvantage in comparison with wholly commercialised applicants with ready
access to finance and human resources to develop a proposal quickly to gain
first advantage. The process for resolving string contention by comparative
evaluation and application prioritisation eligibility for example in the
case of community-based applications, would not be practicable with an
ongoing process, unlike in the case of a defined window for an application
round. The three months window provided for the current round with adequate
notice appears to have worked well.

Q 1.7.1 and 1.7.2  The prioritisation draw of the current round appeared to
work well. If a round mechanism is not adopted next time, it should
nonetheless be possible to inaugurate the next process with a
prioritisation draw or similar mechanism. With more effective communication
of the opportunity and building on current experience of successful IDNs,
prioritisation of IDNs should help to increase the number of IDNs to a
level of take-up exceeding the disappointing low percentage level of the
current round.This should be a key public policy objective of the next
process to expand the global domain name system on a more equitable
and geographically diverse basis.

Q 1.9  The expansion in the number of national and regional
multi-stakeholder Internet Governance Fora (IGFs) provide valuable
outreach opportunities and close-to-market hub modalities for promoting the
next new gTLD application process or round to stakeholder communities
worldwide including least developed economies and small island developing
states for whom the global digital economy increasingly provides
unprecedented opportunity for economic and social growth. ICANN has an
increased opportunity to contribute to sustainable development goals
through expansion of the domain name system.

Q 3.3  The poor performance and management of the CPE process and related
mechanisms was a major failure in the current round. The independent
experts commissioned by the Council ofEurope analysed the issues and
experience of applicants and has made a coherent and thorough set of
recommendationsin their report presented at the Hyderabad ICANN meeting, in
order to correct the systemic mistakes so that communities wishing to
express themselves and assemble freely through a gTLD will be able in a
future process to apply with confidence and in the knowledge that they are
supported by the ICANN stakeholder community.

Q 4.3.3 The PDP WG should review the desirability of a continuous and
rigorous vetting process for applicants during the prolonged period
of application, evaluation and delegation when ownership and lead persons
for the application may change, with the aim of avoiding any possible
risk of criminality gaining a foothold in the domain name system.


Mark Carvell
Head, Global Internet Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
United Kingdom Government

22 May 2017
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachments/20170523/9ed24cf3/attachment.html>