[At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs

[Bret Fausett]

I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time  
and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for  
further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100%  
certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the  
fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and  
something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have  
seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the  
ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we  
now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines  
prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the  
perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we  
will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet  
another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the  
opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact  
the final version.

While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation  
guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call for further  
delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a  
delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email):

 > * The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released  
and evaluated.

This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a  
faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of  
introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other  
incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter  
the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate.  
Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not  
need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- 
registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that  
is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have  
always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some  
cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by  
the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the  
2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- 
served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in  
words meaningful in their own communities.

 > * ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to  
manage all requirements
 > in existing registry and registrar contracts.
 > * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or  
different requirements in new contracts.
 > * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until  
similar issues regarding
 > contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the  
user community.

We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work  
without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from  
the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is  
selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to  
a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD  
application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the  
RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to  
the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual  
compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend  
our time doing it.

 > * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific  
details contained
 > in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate  
communication
 > to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.

This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we  
can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything.  
If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should  
advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance  
user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current  
time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft.

We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional  
delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely.  
Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any  
process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join  
those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search  
for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo.

     -- Bret