Notes from 17 September 2020 APAC Space Web Conference

This APAC Space web conference covered the Draft Final Report for the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (SubPro PDP), which is open for Public Comments till 30 September 2020. SubPro PDP Co-Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr featured three of the Report’s topics that were significant for the APAC community to consider participating. GNSO Council Vice Chair Pam Little facilitated the community discussion.

APAC community members are encouraged to participate in the Public Comments. Jia-Rong Low (ICANN) summarised the following key takeaways from the session:

• The online Google Form to submit a public comment was easy to fill.
• Comments can be submitted in support of a recommendation, not just when in disagreement.

Details of Session

SubPro PDP Background and Draft Final Report

As a brief history, the GNSO’s recommendations in 2007 had led to the 2012 new gTLD Program and its Applicant Guidebook. After analysing lessons from the 2012 round, a Final Issue Report reviewing the Program was presented to the GNSO. Subsequently, the SubPro PDP was chartered in December 2015. It aimed to determine any needed changes for existing 2007 policy recommendations and the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.

The SubPro PDP Draft Final Report currently included recommendations and implementation guidance on 41 topics (see Annex G for details). The outputs for each topic were presented under these categories:

1. Affirmation areas from the 2012 new gTLD Program;
2. Affirmation with modifications;
3. Recommendations;
4. Implementation guidance (i.e. suggestions for implementation); and
5. Issues with no agreement among the PDP Working Group (WG) members.

After the Public Comments period, the PDP WG would finalize recommendations, accounting for public comments received and further discussions on open items pending a consensus. A formal consensus call would be held on all recommendations and outputs before the finished Final Report would be delivered to the GNSO Council by the end of 2020.

Where/How You can Help for Public Comments

Cheryl highlighted that while the entire Draft Final Report was open for comment, the WG was especially seeking feedback on areas that had changed/modified substantially since earlier Public Comment rounds (Annex H of the Draft Final Report summarises the changed areas since the PDP’s Initial Report).

Anyone could submit comments online using the Public Comments Google Form. This was the preferred submission method, but the form could also be downloaded in Microsoft Word and PDF formats for those unable to use Google. Those submitting substantial comments or submitting comments as a group were encouraged to work in Microsoft Word before transferring their comments into the online form for submission.

The Google Form had a standard format/structure so that for each topic there was:

• A topic synopsis and an abstract on what had changed in that topic,
• Clickable options for agreeing/disagreeing with the proposed topic output, and
• An additional open text area to elaborate or provide new information for the WG’s consideration.

Submitters could choose to only respond selectively on topics they wished – there was no need to fill the entire form. Cheryl hoped that having clickable options could make it easier for non-native English speakers to submit their opinions. A handy online tutorial also provided step-by-step guidance on how to fill the online form.

During the community discussion, Elliott Mann commended the design of the Google Form, and asked if the same format could be applied to other PDP Public Comments exercises. Pam said that Google Forms with a dropdown menu and radio buttons were now commonly used in other PDPs, and that this format also facilitated response analysis. Cheryl noted that Google Forms currently had a character limit for open text.

Top Three Highlight Areas for APAC

The top three topics in the Draft Final Report that Cheryl felt were most relevant for the APAC community to consider were:

1. [Topic 17] Applicant Support

The Applicant Support Program (ASP) aimed to provide both financial (e.g. reduced application fees) and pro-bono non-financial support (e.g. in-kind services from pre-approved backend Registry providers) to potential new gTLD applicants. It sought to increase accessibility to, and competition within, the new gTLD space.

2. [Topic 34] Community Applications

These were for gTLDs aiming to operate for the benefit of a clearly defined community. To resolve community application string contentions, where there was confusingly similar gTLDs or more than one qualified applicant, a community applicant could choose the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) as a resolution method.  

3. [Topic 35] Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets

This topic considered the merit of private mechanisms as a final way to resolve string contentions (e.g. by private auction) compared to using ICANN’s Auction of Last Resort. The aim was to operate such private mechanisms fairly while maintaining ICANN Auctions as an option, and minimising any risk of gaming the system.

1. [Topic 17] Applicant Support

Cheryl shared that during the 2012 new gTLD Program, the ASP had a low application rate, possibly due to a lack of engagement and outreach. However, the WG believed that the ASP should continue providing assistance to inexperienced or underserved/underdeveloped regional applicants to reduce barriers of new entry. Hence, further changes were proposed to improve what the WG felt was an initially well-designed ASP. Cheryl felt the community’s opinion would be highly valued on this question: Should the ASP consider some form of assistance with ongoing Registry fees? 

During the community discussion, Pam asked where the funding for ASP might come from, and whether it would be a fixed amount per ASP applicant or a fixed amount split amongst all such applicants. Cheryl responded that the ICANN Board would decide how the funding would be managed going forward, and much of the implementation specifics were still in the works. Pam felt that the APAC community might be interested in these areas as the Draft Final Report was recommending support not just for application fees but also in-kind services (e.g. application writing), which could make a difference for applications coming from APAC. Cheryl agreed with this sentiment. She also shared that much of the in-kind support provided in the 2012 round was given on a pro-bono basis, which should also be taken into account when managing the support resources.

2. [Topic 34] Community Applications

Cheryl noted that the CPE in the 2012 new gTLD Program was problematic on several fronts, including how it was run as a process. Specifically, the CPE could have discouraged potential community applications because an unsuccessful application through the CPE would mean an automatic disqualification from applying for other strings in the main gTLD Program. Hence, the community’s support was very much needed for the WG’s proposed change to now allow unsuccessful CPE applicants the option of applying in the main gTLD Program.

3. [Topic 35] Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets

The WG was focused on ensuring applicants displayed bona fide (i.e. good faith) intentions in their applications, while also allowing them the option for private forms of resolution (including private auction). For ICANN Auctions, the WG separately proposed for these to be held using the second-price auction method – a publicly well-established auction type in which the bidder with the highest sealed bid pays the second-highest bid amount.

Cheryl raised two questions for community input in the Public Comments:

• What factors should be considered when determining if an application was submitted with a bona fide intention to operate a gTLD? – This question arose because some gTLD applications from the 2012 round made considerable money from private resolutions/auctions, leading to fears that such applications could be abused to make money instead of genuinely operating a gTLD.
• What measures should apply for applications lacking a bona fide intention?

Elliot queried in the open discussion on the definition of “bona fide intention”. Cheryl illustrated that a gTLD application for a brand coming from the brand’s owner would likely be genuine. Applicants without an existing business operation would be required to show what their intended use of the gTLD would be. Pam noted there could be challenges with this concept and how it might evolve over time or through the contention process.

Other Points from Community Discussion

Pam noted that the 2012 new gTLD Program had made significant impact on the DNS industry landscape, as well as ICANN org which saw a significant increase in staff.

Alan Tan (Zodiac Holdings) enquired if there were any process changes proposed compared to the 2012 new gTLD round. Cheryl said the WG had closely reviewed how things were intended to operate in the 2012 round vis-à-vis how they were actually implemented. It had then worked on identifying shortfalls and finding solutions.

Pam felt that a big improvement was the recommendation for applicants to have a list of pre-approved backend Registry service providers they could choose from, which would make the application process more efficient. Cheryl added that a ready list of pre-approved providers could give new entrants more confidence to venture into the domain name market.

Separately, five other Draft Final Report topics were included in the presentation slides (under “Appendix”) for the community’s additional consideration for the Public Comment period.