<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>A few key issues were discussed at the new gtld policy meeting on 11 April in LA. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Here are the 70 slides from the meeting:<div> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08.pdf</a></div><div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>1. There is a question as to whether a TLD operator can expand its business down the line in ways not outlines in its original application for a TLD. We have argued that TLD operators should not be straight jacketed into their business plan 1.0 and should be allowed to expand their use of the TLD in lawful ways. Some in the business and registry constituencies want for TLD operators to have to go back and receive approval from ICANN every time they want to use the TLD in a new way. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>2. Some want country names and their abbreviations to be off-limits to anyone for use in a top-level domain. There is a lot of pressure from GAC to reserve words they would want to own. The GNSO's response has been GAC can object to any application like anyone else and take the names it wants that way. But there are still calls for a reserved name list for country names and abbreviations.</div><div><br></div><div>3. When two applicants want the same string, ICANN is proposing a "beauty contest" method of determining who should be given the string. This "comparison evaluation" was not in the GNSO's recommendations and is something ICANN staff has created. Many in the GNSO expressed concern about this method, but it remains to be seen whether the GNSO will have final say in what its recommendations are. The beauty contest criteria for deciding who is awarded a domain name include very subjective and arbitrary evaluation criteria such as "provides value", or is "important" to ICANN.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>4. The morality / public order string criteria continue to be problematic. There is some discussion as to who has standing to raise an objection to a domain name based on morality and public order. We have argued that only governments should have such standing, but the current wording of the recommendation opens it up for any one in the world to object to a string based on morality and public order. ICANN will adopt a "one-size-fits-all" for standards of morality and public order. Very little information on this issue was given at the 11 April mtg (only 1 slide of 70 slides).</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><!--StartFragment--> <div class="MsoNormal">5. There will be a 3-part test for OBJECTIONS:</div> <div class="MsoNormal"> For an objection to be successful in killing an application for a domain name, the objector must prove that:</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .75in"><span style="mso-font-width:0%">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span>Community opposition to the application is substantial; AND</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .75in"><span style="mso-font-width:0%">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span>Community invoked is a coherent community; AND</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .75in"><span style="mso-font-width:0%">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span>There is a reasonable association between the community invoked and the TLD string applied for.</p> <!--EndFragment--> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div>6. The trademark and business constituencies want special privileges for software companies that would prohibit a TLD if it corresponds to a file extension (like .doc or .pdf). ICANN staff said it was told that there were no technical problems with such a TLD, but the trademark industry is still pushing for this and may get the special carve out. At the meeting I argued that if there is a question of confusion, the objection process should be used to solve that question. Those companies can go through the same process that everyone else must go through to raise their objection based on likelihood of confusion. But the voices for the special carve-out are loud and well-funded; and the contracting parties don't care much one way or another so will likely give in to the pressure to create a presumption against a file extension as a TLD.</div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>7. Chart of new gtld sting evaluation process:</div><div> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>8. And see also the attached briefing notes from ICANN staff of 14 April.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><span></span></div></span></div></div></div></div></body></html>