[At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN

[Vittorio Bertola]

Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent
them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here.
-----

Dear Board of ICANN,

as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due
to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session
to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can
forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere
for yesterday's audience.

Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people
already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However,
please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the
Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one
of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability.
Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum
would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just
one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a
terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time
for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation
happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board.

Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD
application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good
proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP.
Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have
been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which
will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly
people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning
them to the Internet age.

A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create
online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia
edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and
language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the
sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all
efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is
imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen
registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a
non-profit vehicle.

I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as
good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant
defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with
such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server
farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills
and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However,
even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task
to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we
would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria
designed for multimillionaire global ventures.

Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or
unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs
started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty
successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among
those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is
actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still
today.

The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple
of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job.
Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned
billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no
money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to
innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft?

I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new
TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like
Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each
application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000
per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence
of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if
you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative
global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect
their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible.

There are several pricing structures that could address this issue:
special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't
reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with
appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have
specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to
submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount
that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place
features to address this issue.

In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be
judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may
get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate
registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague
specialization, ICANN will have failed.

But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure
might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business
entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best
practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange
beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business
corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home
any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature
and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the
governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve
its prestige and credibility.

I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring
that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved,
or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that
these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment
of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of
development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they
carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it
comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in
coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual.
Please do not forget this.

Thanks,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------