New gTLD Program Update from ICANN 49

Editor's Notes

• #22: 9 October 2013: 138 applications eligible to proceed to contracting and contention resolution if all eligibility criteria are met Applicants indicated that the TLD will be operated in a non-exclusive manner and the application supports this intent 28 January 2014: 12 applications submitted statements on public interest Applications continue to be held pending instructions from NGPC 21 March 2014: Application Update/Explanation Deadline Applicants who indicated that the TLD will be operated in a non-exclusive manner, but the application does not supports this intent must: Submit a change request to align the application with the intent Submit a statement explaining how exclusive access use of the TLD would serve the public interest Applications continue to be held pending instructions from NGPC
• #23: 9 October 2013: 138 applications eligible to proceed to contracting and contention resolution if all eligibility criteria are met Applicants indicated that the TLD will be operated in a non-exclusive manner and the application supports this intent 28 January 2014: 12 applications submitted statements on public interest Applications continue to be held pending instructions from NGPC 21 March 2014: Application Update/Explanation Deadline Applicants who indicated that the TLD will be operated in a non-exclusive manner, but the application does not supports this intent must: Submit a change request to align the application with the intent Submit a statement explaining how exclusive access use of the TLD would serve the public interest Applications continue to be held pending instructions from NGPC
• #26: The first line there represents the contention sets created by the String Similarity Panel, back about 13 months ago We had 234 contention sets, and 758 applications in contention Since then we have seen 47 contention sets resolved, we also had some sets “merge” and 1 set created as a result of objections. So the new current total is: 233 Contention Sets 164 Active Sets – with 543 applications still in contention 22 Sets on Hold – with 87 applications in contention Two weeks back we updated application status and contention sets status as Trang described earlier, to reflect results of various processes, most notably objection determinations This brought us down to 186 Unresolved Contention Sets Objection determinations changed the structure of several sets - Some apps were removed from contention - Some added to contention - and some sets were joined together We now have several sets with both direct & indirect contention relationships, ofter referred to as indirect contention sets. Each Set has assigned one of three statuses: Active – meaning at least 2 applications remain in direct contention and no applications are on-hold On Hold –one or more applications has a status of on-hold –thus the set will not move forward until the issue is resolved Resolved – no direct contention remains, no apps on hold 165 Active 21 On Hold 47 Resolved
• #27: To further explain the contention sets we have redesigned the contention set page with improved functionality: Each Contention Set assigned an identifier number Contention Set names made up of the String or Strings in the set – eliminates multiple entries for sets with multiple strings (hotels & hoteis) Visual depiction of each contention set Lists all contention sets including those resolved Expanding the details allows users to see the application status of each member of the contention set
• #28: We published the first 4 results on 18 March 2014 These results were as recommended by the CPE Panel after careful consideration. The panel concluded that none of the 4 applications met the very high standard to win priority as a community application. The reports reiterate the criteria and explain how the application compared. These contention sets if they remain unresolved will be placed into the queue for Auctions once they are eligible. These first evaluations did take longer than expected, but we believe this next group should trend back toward the ~ 3 month target duration. Q & A – Why were no CQ’s issued to these applicants CQ’s in CPE are different than Initial Evaluation. The panel defined tight boundaries on what would warrant a clarifying question. There is a fine line where we can not allow applicants to change their applications at this point in the program. What happened to Osaka? Osaka had a unique issue as a Geo name string, where both applicants received support from the same government authority as a Geo. Thus we need more information from the government authority before proceeding
• #29: CPE Criteria in AGB 4.2.3 Community Establishment Nexus between Proposed String and Community Registration Policies Community Endorsement Scope of Evaluations Application Responses – particularly questions 13, 18 -20, 27 & 28 Publicly Available info – Information about the community, Correspondence, Objection Determinations, and Applicant Comments Because information is reviewed does not necessarily means the panel finds it relevant to the scoring of the application
• #30: Auctions are now operational We published the Summary and Analysis Report of the Public Comment on 6 March 2014 With the publication of the public comment report, we also published the auction rules, and bidder agreement that will be used for operations Last week we published an updated Auction Schedule – it depicts the 1st Auction being held 4 June 2014 The schedule is a refresh from the one published with the public comment documents in Dec 2013 The document includes those sets already resolved, we thought it made it clearer how the contention set number factored into the schedule In addition to the schedule, we have notified 106 contention sets that they are being sent to Auction – this represents all of the contention sets currently eligible This does not mean to imply all 106 are being set to Auction 1. Please consult the Auction Schedule to understand which auction your contention set is schedule to participate. I am not going to speak much to Auctions as we have a dedicated session later today in this room. I will ask that you hold your questions until that session.
• #32: 630 In Contention 23 Have GAC Advice 6 Have Objection(s) 46 Pending Change Requests 7 In Re-Evaluation 70 On Hold
• #33: UPDATE?? Current statistics as of 16 November 2013: CIR Notifications sent through Priority Number 1300 960 Applicants invited to contracting 275 Applicants responded to CIR 178 Contracts sent for signature 144 Registry Agreements signed COI outreach completed
• #34: 23 incomplete CIR 25 COI 18 negotiate 22 other -6 ACR -6BGS -9ExA -1 Spec 12
• #35: Other -6 RAs en-route to Akram for signature -1 on hold (lgbt – pending AM)
• #42: As mentioned in the last applicant update, we are pleased to add Nominet to our group of EBERO providers. We expect to be able to declare them operational in May at which point they will join CNNIC and CORE as the third provider. Over the past quarter we conducted practice simulations with both CNNIC and CORE. These exercises allowed the ICANN and provider teams to gain valuable time and experience working together. These practice exercises simulated a variety of conditions that are likely to occur in an actual event. The SLA monitoring systems that are in place and already are monitoring the new gTLDs was used to trigger the practice event, just as it would do in an actual event. These practices allowed both teams to work through their processes in a collaborative and productive manner. In both cases, each provider was very effective and efficient at restoring services with both of them easily meeting SLAs. Looking forward, we also see a need for additional providers to improve geographic distribution and coverage. To support this need, we have developed a draft RFP and expect to release it in the April timeframe. Along with the stringent financial and technical evaluation, location will certainly be considered in the evaluation process. We expect to select the new providers in June with a goal of bringing additional providers online before the end of the year.
• #43: The Trademark Clearinghouse has seen significant growth since the last ICANN meeting. The number of trademarks in the database has grown by about 50%. Similarly, non-Latin script records have increased by about 50% as well. The count of jurisdictions has grown by approximately 15%. The number of abused labels and UDRP cases have also grown significantly. As of today, there have been over 100 sunrise periods and over 50 claims periods that have been supported by the TMCH. This has resulted in just over 21,000 transactions in Sunrise and Claims. This has been supported by a massive increase in the number of certified registrars.