Latest Version of ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook – DAG4

Today ICANN released it’s latest version its Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) for new generic top-level domains. It’s been 9 months coming; DAG3 appeared in the fall of last year. Compared to DAG3, there are only minor changes (see the redlined version of the document). Overall we are satisfied with the new DAG, as we were with the previous version, which came out nine months ago.

There are few substantial changes from the previous version, which is good news. It suggests that we are almost at the end of this process, and provides an indication that this will be the final DAG before the Final Applicant Guidebook.

The major changes (which really aren’t that major) are as follows:

• An expanded role for public comment (Section 1.1.2.5), which is a wide-open back door for objections to applications which pass all of ICANN’s objective criteria, but are still not liked by the various powerful interests that have held up this process for so long. In this way ICANN can claim to have an objective process while leaving an avenue open for meddling in case something “objectionable” gets through. It’s not a stretch to presume that the .XXX fiasco was on the minds of ICANN as this was drafted.
• Cross-ownership of registry and registrar (Section 1.2.1). This version of the DAG has strict separation between registrar and registry, but with a footnote saying this is open to change if the “community” comes up with a better solution. The “community” now discussing this is the Vertical Integration Working Group, which consists almost wholly of registrars and registries aiming competing proposals at each other. The proposals vary in their details but are uniform in giving short shrift to idea that might help the consumer, but very thorough when it comes to advocating what might help the proposer. It is likely that in the final applicant guidebook we will see some limited cross-ownership possibilities, fine-tuned to please incumbent players.
• $5000 of the $185,000 fee is now due when registering to apply (Section 1.5.1). Applicants will create a new registration for each TLD they plan to apply for, and will have to pay $5000 for the privilege. The remaining $180,000 is due with the application itself.
• An expanded background check for applicants (Section 2.1). As well as the usual things that can disqualify a person or entity from running a piece of public infrastructure (corruption, bribery, terrorism), ICANN has added another great evil of our times, “intellectual property violations.” If for some reason you don’t think that intellectual property violations rank with terrorism in the pantheon of Bad Things, please have a chat with ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency, who will set you straight. For extra credit, ask them who was behind this amendment and watch for expressions of astonished innocence.
• Some small changes to the treatment of geographical names (Section 2.2.1.4.2). The DAG is now explicit that if you want to do apply for a gTLD for the capital of a country (e.g., .cairo) you will have to get the permission of the national government.
• Use of zone files (Section 2.2.3.3). If you want to do a TLD that makes innovative use of the DNS (as .TEL did), you will now have to ask for special permission from ICANN, who will check to make sure that your plan won’t harm the stability of the DNS system.
• Incorporation of IRT recommendations (e.g., Section 5.4.1). Parts of the recommendations of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) have been incorporated into the DAG, including the Uniform Rapid Suspension requirement.

Overall, this version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook differs from the previous version by adding some incremental changes and extra back doors for fidgety governments and the IP interests who lobby them. None of the changes are unexpected or especially egregious. We are satisfied with the new document, and hope and expect that ICANN will move expeditiously to issue a final guidebook with application dates and final rules.