[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue Sep 3 22:57:24 UTC 2019

Hi Susan. This is a bit confusing.  I recall that Jeff noted there was no high level agreement for this proposition. Rather he stated there could be high level agreement that strings from prior rounds must complete application evaluation prior to consideration of subsequent round applications for the same string.  He has since confirmed that in a post to the list.

How did we get to a proposal for “no applications for the same string?”

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 3:54 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated



During a call a couple of weeks ago, when we were discussing application prioritisation, I volunteered to circulate for consideration a proposal to prohibit allowing applications in a later application window where the string has previously been applied for and not yet been delegated.  Although it had originally been proposed that this might extend to confusingly similar strings, having reflected on the discussion during the call I accept that this would probably be unrealistic, since confusing similarity needs to be determined as part of the TLD evaluation process.  I have therefore limited this proposal to exact match strings, as follows:

  *   This proposal assumes that we will have at least one further application round/open window for submission of applications, and possibly that there may be a number of such future open windows during which applications may be submitted, followed by some closed period when applications are not received, before the next application window opens (I will use the phrase “application submission period”).
  *   Where one or more applicants for a particular TLD string have applied for that string in a prior  application submission period (including the 2012 application submission period); and
  *   The TLD has not been withdrawn but has not yet proceeded to delegation for whatever reason, including but not limited to:
     *   One or more of the applications has not yet completed evaluation;
     *   One or more of the applications is still the subject of an objection process
     *   The contention set has not yet been resolved;
     *   There is an ongoing accountability process, [appeal] or other legal challenge underway with respect to a decision(s) relating to one or more application;
     *   Time within which to commence an accountability process, [appeal] or other legal challenge on such a decision is still running;
  *   The exact match to that TLD string shall be blocked from application during future application submission periods until such time as the prior round application(s) have finally been concluded, according the rules under which they applied:
     *   If the TLD string is delegated to one of the earlier applicants, then that string will remain unavailable for later applicants;
     *   If all of the earlier applications are finally rejected, then (provided that a decision has not been made by the Board to permanently refuse that string) the TLD string will once again become available for application:
        *   from the next application submission period, provided that this allows a minimum of 3 months notice before the application submission period opens; or,
        *   If the next application submission period opens in less than 3 months, then the subsequent application submission period.


We know that, many years after the 2012 application submission period closed, there are still a handful of applications for TLD strings which remain unresolved, generally due to delays caused by recourse to ICANNs accountability mechanisms.

Whilst we all hope that in subsequent procedures we will have fewer of the challenges that we saw in the 2012 round, it is reasonable to assume that some will still occur.

In any event, if subsequent procedures take the form of a series of discrete application submission periods, with known, finite, periods between them, then it is conceivable that applications from one application submission period may still be being processed when then next application submission period opens.

If the period between application submission periods is reasonably short (12 months has been discussed, for example) we could conceivably see the added complication of applications for the same string being queued up across multiple windows.

Whilst a later applicant who applied unsuccessfully for a TLD, which was eventually allocated to an applicant from a prior application submission period, could expect to recover their application fee, there is a cost to putting together an application in excess of the ICANN fee, and this would not be recoverable.  The later applicant could also have their application fee tied up for months or even years, pending the outcome of the earlier application(s).

Some have argued that this is the choice of the later applicant, that they can check whether there are prior “live” applications and decide accordingly whether they still want to apply.  I believe this does a disservice to potential applicants, particularly those who are not so familiar with all of the history of prior applications and who may not appreciate that in many cases they would have no realistic prospect of being allocated the TLD string that ICANN has allowed them to apply for.  Blocking the TLD from application, until such time as the previous applications are resolved, seems a much fairer approach.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190903/1db30968/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list