| Current Proposal |
NCUC Proposal |
Proposed Change |
Rationale for Change |
| Terms of Reference 2 (i) Selection Criteria - String Criteria i. Strings should not be confusingly similar to an existing top level domain. |
i. Strings should not be visually confusingly similar to an existing top level domain |
Add: "visually" |
Clarify what specific type of confusion is at issue. ToR 2 Discussion 12: "the recommendation here is limited to visual confusion." The ToR should say what they mean. |
| Terms of Reference 2 (v) Selection Criteria - String Criteria v. Strings should not be contrary to public policy principles (as set out in GACs draft principles). |
v. The string should not be illegal in the country in which it is registered (i.e. national law applies). |
Remove ICANN as arbiter of global public policy. National govts would determine what is permitted in the nation in question. |
Current proposal is unworkable due to competing
standards of morality and competing public policy objectives. Current proposal usurps national sovereignty. ICANN is not a legislative body to be determining "appropriate" public policy objectives and global standards of morality. National legislatures determine what is lawful in their own jurisdictions. Current proposal places enormous burden and liability on ICANN for its decisions as to what is controversial and who is the worthy applicant for a particular string. ICANN will have to remain content-neutral to avoid legal liability. Freedom of expression can be better protected with NCUC's proposal since the restrictions are more narrowly tailored to meet national law. |
| Terms of Reference 2 (vii) Selection Criteria - Applicant Criteria ii. Applicants should be able to demonstrate their financial and operational capability |
ii. Applicants should be able to demonstrate their operational capability. |
Delete: "financial" |
The market should decide what businesses fail
and which flourish in the new DNS space. Not only is it mission-creep for ICANN to be in the business of approving business/financial plans, ICANN is not qualified to be picking winners and losers in the domain name space. ICANN should not interfere in the free market and limit consumer choice by requiring the need for an ICANN-approved business plan. Only operational and technical criteria should be properly considered by ICANN. |
| Terms of Reference 2 (x) Selection Criteria - Applicant Criteria x. Staff will be used to make preliminary determinations about applications as part of a process which includes the use of expert panels. |
x. Staff will make preliminary determinations as to whether the application has met objective application completeness criteria only. |
Delete the use of expert panels. Limit ICANN staff's decision-making to only objective determinations that are known and predictable (i.e. is the application complete?) |
ICANN staff should not be making subjective
determinations on an application. The only preliminary decision
that is appropriate from ICANN staff is whether or not an application
is complete. "Expert panels" are expensive, time-consuming and produce arbitrary results. There is a dispute resolution process in place for addressing "close" calls, so expert panels are an unnecessarily expensive and duplicative process. Criteria for string should be objective, so there should not be a legitimate need for experts to opine. |
| Terms of Reference 3 Discussion 3. "... a comparative evaluation system will be used to analyze all applications and, where there is a string contention between applicants for the same string, a different process may be necessary." |
3. "Each application will be evaluated against objective and published criteria and where there is a string contention between applicants for the same string, a different process may be necessary." |
Delete: " a comparative evaluation system will be used to analyze all applications," and Replace it with: "Each application will be evaluated against objective and published criteria" |
Current draft is unclear and appears to say that
applications will be evaluated against each other. The proper
analysis is for each application to be evaluated against an objective
set of technical string criteria. This should NOT be a process in
which applications are compared against each other by ICANN staff. |