[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Amendment to Rec 4.4

[Ariel Liang]

Hello all,

Following the discussion of Rec 4.4 in the last meeting, leadership team was tasked to investigate the scenarios where an applied-for gTLD string or its variant label is confusingly similar to 1) a gTLD string (or any of its variant labels) that was applied-for in a previous round but is still in process; or 2) a requested ccTLD string or any of its variant labels. Subsequently, the leadership is tasked to consider potential amendment to Rec 4.4.

Please see below the proposed amendment language highlighted in yellow. Please note that 4.4.3 and its sub elements are consistent with the process as outlined in the 2012 round for resolving conflict between a requested ccTLD string and an applied-for gTLD string. This proposed amendment will be discussed during the upcoming call as well.

Thank you!
Ariel

==

Final Recommendation 4.4: All labels from a variant label set, comprising the primary gTLD string and all of its allocatable and blocked variant labels, must share the same outcome out of the String Similarity Review. This means the String Similarity Review, in accordance with Final Recommendations 4.1-4.3, determines that:

4.4.1 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name, a two-character ASCII string, or any of its variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process; or

4.4.2 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to another applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s), the entire variant label sets of the two applied-for primary gTLD strings will be placed in a contention set. Upon the resolution of the contention set, the application that prevails can proceed to the next stage of the application process.

4.4.3 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to a requested primary ccTLD string or any of its variant label(s), ICANN org is expected to take the following approach to resolve the conflict:

4.4.3.1 If one of the applications has completed its respective process before the other is lodged, that primary TLD string (and its approved variant label(s), if applicable) will be delegated.

4.4.3.1.1 A gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) that has successfully completed all relevant evaluation stages, including dispute resolution and string contention, if applicable, and is eligible for entry into a registry agreement will be considered complete, and therefore would not be disqualified by a newly-filed ccTLD request.

4.4.3.1.2 A ccTLD request (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) that is validated will be considered complete and therefore would not be disqualified by a newly-filed gTLD application.*

*The term “validated is defined in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn> and reaffirmed in the ccPDP4 Initial Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/138969202/ccPDP4%20-%20standard%20policy%20initial%20report%20%20-%20final-%209%20August%202023.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1691669745000&api=v2>.

4.4.3.2 In the case where neither application has completed its respective process, where the gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable)  does not have the required approval from the relevant government or public authority, the validated ccTLD request will prevail and the gTLD application will not be approved.

4.4.3.3 In the case where the gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) has obtained the support or non-objection of the relevant government or public authority, but is ineligible to proceed due to contention with a ccTLD request, a full refund of the evaluation fee is available to the gTLD applicant if its application was submitted prior to the publication of the ccTLD request.

4.4.4 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) that has been held over from a previous application round and still in progress, the newly submitted application will be put on hold until the outcome of the application from the previous round has been determined.
4.4.4.1 If the application from a previous round successfully completes evaluation and is eligible for entry into a registry agreement, the entire variant label set of the newly applied-for primary gTLD string is ineligible to proceed in the application process.

4.4.4.2 If the application from a previous round is withdrawn or fails to complete evaluation, the newly submitted application can proceed to the next stage of the application process.







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20230920/5f4d289f/attachment.html>