At the direction of the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), ICANN is soliciting public comment on a proposed review mechanism to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations in certain New gTLD Program String Confusion Objection proceedings. The proposed review mechanism will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM.

If adopted, the review mechanism would constitute a change to the String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Given that the proposal to implement this review mechanism could affect the outcomes of one or more of String Confusion Objections – a process that was informed by years of debate and public comment as part of the development of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook – the proposed review mechanism is being published for public comment.

The New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (Guidebook) identifies four grounds upon which a formal objection may be filed against a gTLD application. One such objection is a String Confusion Objection (SCO), which may be filed by an objector (meeting the standing requirements) on the grounds that an applied-for gTLD string is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string in the same round of applications. If successful, a SCO could change the configuration of the preliminary contention sets in that the two applied-for gTLD strings will be considered to be in contention with one another (see Guidebook Module 4, String Contention Procedures). The SCOs are administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). Expert Determinations have been issued by the ICDR for all String Confusion Objections filed.

Some members of the community have commented on perceived “inconsistent” SCO Expert Determinations. The NGPC has monitored the SCO Expert Determinations over the past several months, and discussed the community comments at more than one of its meetings. Also, on 10 October 2013 [PDF, 132 KB] the Board Governance Committee (BGC) asked staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections as some requestors commented on “inconsistencies” in certain SCO Expert Determinations.

Following on from the staff report on String Confusion Objections, the NGPC identified two sets of perceived “inconsistent” SCO Expert Determinations (i.e. objections raised by the same objector against different applications for the same string, where the outcomes of the SCOs differ). At its 5 February 2014 meeting, the NGPC took action to direct the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, to initiate a public comment period on the framework principles of a potential review mechanism to address the perceived inconsistent SCO Expert Determinations.

• Proposed Review Mechanism to Address the Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations of New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections: Framework Principles [PDF, 496 KB]
• New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Module 4 [PDF, 429 KB]
• ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee Resolution 2014.02.05.NG02
• String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations [PDF, 223 KB]

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO , responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. This public comment forum is being opened in relation to two proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures being recommended by the SCI.

The current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council. In addition, the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for WGs to self-assess their work. As a result, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion. In addition, the GNSO Council asked the SCI to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.

Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1) providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2) timely publication of the resubmitted motion, and 3) seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.  Please see the redlined version of Section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 148 KB].

In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the self-assessment questionnaire WG members are asked a series of questions about the WG processes and outputs. ICANN staff is required to monitor responses to the questionnaire, close the questionnaire when all WG members have completed it, and provide a summary of responses to the WG Chair. Please see the redlined version of Annex I to the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 242 KB].

As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures.

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO , responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. The SCI operates on the basis of the GNSO WG Guidelines, and its recommendations are made based on Full Consensus of the SCI on the proposals under consideration. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appoints a representative to the SCI. Other members of the SCI include a Nominating Committee appointee and an observer from any GNSO constituency-in-formation (if any). The SCI may also appoint observers from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee. For further information about the SCI and its activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home.