[At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs

[Roberto Gaetano]

If I can only add one sentence to the complete exposition of Bret, I would
ask the following question.
Am I the only one who sees the similarity between the new gTLD introduction
and the WhoIs process, in the sense that some groups that are happy with the
status quo will find always one more reason to propose new studies and
analyses, with the result that nothing gets ever done?
Happy new year.
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf 
> Of Bret Fausett
> Sent: Friday, 09 January 2009 21:28
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: [At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
ge-lists.icann.org
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20090109/83ec1cd1/attachment-0001.dat>