notes on DAG v3 (guidebook for new gTLD applicants)

[Carlos A. Afonso]

These are my scant notes on what I see are serious issues in the current
  Draft Application Guidebook version, besides the trademark ones. I
just talked about these in our meeting here in Seoul.

According to the DAG, failing to comply with deadlines has no
consequences for Icann, only for the applicant. UDRP in the delegation
process will be outsourced only, at additional cost. Not only $$$, but
window of opportunity and other costs should be taken into account in
accruing responsibilities for delays.

String contention: what exactly is "community priority (comparative)
evaluation"? What are the precise criteria for deciding on auction of
this evaluation to resolve string contention?

Regarding the TLD Application System (TAS), the DAG v.3 says "ICANN will
take commercially reasonable steps to protect all applicant data
submitted from unauthorized access, but cannot warrant against the
malicious acts of third parties who may, through system corruption or
other means, gain unauthorized access to such data." E.g, what would be
the refund policy (besides other penalties) if data violation occurs and
Icann is found responsible? The way this is formulated in DAG v.3, Icann
takes very little (if any) responsbility for eventual misuse of
applicants' data.

What is precisely a "clearly delineated community"?

Pre-delegation technical tests: the DAG v.3 says "Following execution of
a registry agreement, the prospective registry operator must complete
technical setup and show satisfactory performance on a set of technical
tests before delegation of the gTLD into the root zone may be
initiated." What are these tests? Icann relegates dispute resolution to
third parties (UDR service providers). Are these technical tests also
delegated? What are the qualifications/certifications for the group in
charge of these tests and concluding reports?

Etc etc etc...

--c.a.