In late August the GNSO Council received an ICANN staff response to a Resolution on subsequent rounds of new gTLDs passed during its June meeting in London.
At the time the response was issued only 373 gTLDs had been delegated out of the 1321 total applications being processed. So the first round of the program still has a long way to go and the jury is very much out on analyzing its successes, failures, unexpected issues, and overall market demand and acceptance.
ICA’s primary focus during the development of the Applicant Guidebook (AG) for the first round was on assuring that the new rights protection measures (RPMs) – the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – treated registrants fairly, communicated clearly and effectively, and provided acceptable procedural and substantive due process. Overall registrations in the TMCH have been lower than anticipated and, surprisingly, the traditional UDRP is being used as an arbitration tool for alleged infringement at new gTLDs more than the URS despite the latter’s speedier and less costly administration. Section (d) of the staff response focuses on those RPMs, and reveals that staff has been analyzing the performance of all of them to inform an Issues Report process that will commence in April 2015. That Issues Report could well lead to a UDRP reform process that is long overdue – and in which ICA intends to be fully involved.
The response also notes that the Council’s Resolution called for the launching of a Discussion Group on new gTLDs and future rounds, and it held its first conference call this past week. ICA has joined that Group and we have already seen dozens of questions and topics submitted for its consideration. While the staff response does not suggest a timetable for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs, the best estimates we are seeing are that it would not likely occur before 2017. Of course, the results of the first round will have great bearing on AG modifications in subsequent rounds as well as the willingness of new applicants to make the hefty required financial commitment.
Here is the text of the staff response:
I wanted to provide an update on the request for a status report from staff as part of the GNSO Council’s motion on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds during the ICANN 50 meeting in London (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406). This included status reporting on: (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN’s anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN’s work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN’s current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds.
This relates to a number of activities that are under way and we expect to be able to deliver the complete report in mid-September. Here are some notes and updates on each of the points below:
(a) The New gTLD Program generally
As of last week, 373 TLDs have been delegated, 491 applicants have entered registry agreements, and 1321 applications are currently in process through the program. Updated statistics are published on a weekly basis at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics, with the detail according to volume of applications within the various stages. If there are any specific points that the GNSO would like covered in the portion of the report on the status of the program, please let me know.
(b) ICANN’s anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments
Preparations for this review have been under way for some time, beginning with the Board’s request for advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing definitions, measures, and targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en#6). This resulted in recommendations from both the GNSO and ALAC, whereupon the Board formed the Implementation Advisory Group on Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) in September 2013 to review those recommended metrics and make recommendations to the review team based on an evaluation of the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of each of the proposed 70 metrics. The IAG-CCT has paid particular attention to baselines, to ensure that data is collected that will be important for benchmarking the impact of the New gTLD Program in these areas. The IAG-CCT provided an interim recommendation for a consumer survey and an economic study to help capture baseline data; this recommendation was approved by the Board in March 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en#2.c). The Final Report of the IAG-CCT is expected to be provided to the Board in October, for consideration during the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles.
ICANN is conducting an open RFP process to engage providers for the consumer survey (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rfps-2012-02-25-en), and the RFP is in development for the economic study and expected to be published within the next two weeks. For the additional set of metrics recommended where baselines are necessary, and that relate to in-house data, staff is already in the process of compiling the data as well as planning for tools for update and presentation of that data.
In addition to the areas of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice, the review in 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments includes review of the effectiveness of the application and evaluation process, and of safeguards put in place in the program to mitigate issues. These relate to areas discussed below in (c) and (d).
(c) ICANN’s work to date on any evaluation of the first round
Staff’s work in reviewing the program to date has focused on operations, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. We’ve also identified a preliminary set of review areas that would benefit from in-depth discussions about these elements of the program’s implementation. As reviewing the program’s operations covers a large number of detailed considerations across a broad range of topics, we are still determining how to best organize the subject areas and review questions so that they can be logically considered and presented to the community for input. To date, staff has held debriefing sessions with all of the panels who performed the Initial and Extended Evaluation processes so that these provider insights and identification of areas for additional consideration can also be taken into account.
(d) The work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse
This comes from GAC advice, where an independent review was proposed to take place “one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round.” (This would be February 2015, which is the current target for this review.) A few other activities are in process relating to rights protection that are also relevant. First is a standing GNSO request for an Issue Report reviewing all rights protection mechanisms (current and developed for the New gTLD Program) including the UDRP and URS, to be delivered 18 months after the first delegation of new gTLDs (which occurred in October 2013). We are on target to have significant analysis done by this time (April 2015) to inform the creation of this Issue Report. Second, as noted above, effectiveness of the safeguards put in place for the New gTLD Program is a topic for consideration under the 9.3 Affirmation of Commitments review, and the analysis in progress is expected to be another input to that effort. In light of the above, staff is well under way in compiling data on the usage of the new rights protection mechanisms in the program (e.g., provider statistics, review of frequent customer service questions, issues raised in user feedback) and expects that this analysis will serve as groundwork for a number of purposes, including the above independent review. A discussion session on this topic is slated for the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles.
(e) ICANN’s current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds
These projections are still in process. As many of these activities are interrelated, sequencing and scheduling the activities in a logical and efficient way can take several paths. Additional activities, such as a root stability review, have not been discussed in the topics above but also have an impact. We do expect to publish a projected overall timetable, as well as timelines for the individual tracks mentioned here, and will make sure that this is included in the report to be delivered.
Also, we note that the Discussion Group formed by the GNSO motion referenced above has been convened and intends to work on issue identification and categorization as a preface to any policy development work that may be pursued by the GNSO, and will follow those developments closely.
Best regards,
Karen Lentz
Director, Operations & Policy Research
ICANN