[EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide

[Annette Muehlberg]

Hi Patrick,

I am not sure about the end of the fifth paragraph:
>We suggest that registries should be forced
> to use registrars only when their size goes beyond certain thresholds
> (e.g. 50k-100k domains).

Apart from that, I think this is a good EURALO statement and expresses our will as discussed.

I am wondering if not at least the start - no further delay (!) to the new gTLD process - should be possible to enter the ALAC statement as well. It would certainly be in continuity of all previous ALAC statements.

best greetings
annette

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
> Gesendet: 25.01.09 17:48:26
> An: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide


> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Please find below and as an attachment, a draft Euralo statement on the
> gTLD Applicant's guide
> 
> Regarding the process: the public comments period is over. However, the
> ALAC is able to make comments directly to the board. The Euralo comments
> could be an appendix to the overall ALAC statement.
> 
> I have also included a draft ALAC statement. While the ALAC text may
> still change a bit in wording, I expect the main ideas to remain. Hence,
> I drafted the Euralo text to mention only the things that do not appear
> in the ALAC statement.
> 
> Please comment to the list,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> 
> Euralo additional  Statement regarding the First Draft of the Applicant
> Guidebook and Associated Document
> 
> The European At-Large Regional Organization supports the general ALAC
> statement below. Additionally, we nevertheless wish to insist on several
> aspects.
> 
> The EURALO does not support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD
> process, we are particularly concerned about any delay to the
> introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country code and strongly
> oppose any further barriers to their introduction.
> 
> We also note that the process is conducted largely in English, and the
> complex and lengthy documentation that must be understood before making
> an application introduces a strong bias toward English speaking
> applicants. International competition will not be enhanced through
> processes that disadvantage the non-English speaking world.
> 
> Further, a rigid registry/registrar separation really does not fit into
> the reality of smaller applicants, especially non-profit. In these
> cases, the burden of having to cope with ICANN-accredited registrars
> might simply kill the registry, while registrars might have little
> interest in reselling or promoting the TLD.
> 
> Also, for TLDs aimed at specific geographically-defined communities,
> especially if the TLD is an IDN, there might be a serious scarcity of
> ICANN-accredited registrars offering services in that part of the globe,
> or there might even be none. We suggest that registries should be forced
> to use registrars only when their size goes beyond certain thresholds
> (e.g. 50k-100k domains).
> 
> The Euralo is also asking to have a different approval process for the
> geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, not-for-profit gTLD's.
> They should have the opportunity to enter their proposals with a low
> entry fee, which should be proportional to the intended size of the TLD
> (registry would pay extra fees once they grow and move from one size
> group to the following one).
> 
> 
> ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the First Draft of the Applicant
> Guidebook and Associated Documents - V1.
> 
> Firstly, the ALAC wishes to make clear that the At-Large community as a
> whole is not of one view with respect to many elements of the New gTLD
> programme.
> There are a number of members of our community who are sceptical of the
> need for new gTLDs at all – conversely, there are others who believe
> that new TLDs are a great thing and that the existing process has gone
> on much too long and should be expedited; between these views are
> various intermediary views.
> 
> However, with respect to the specifics in the Applicant Guidebook and
> associated documents, the community does have a number of strong views
> that are generally shared. They are as follows:
> 
> Firstly, with respect to the fee for a new TLD application, and the
> yearly fee for retaining the delegation, we find that the rationale is
> at best tenuous (for example, why is it that ICANN needs to recoup costs
> expensed in previous years for the new gTLD programme if it really
> doesn’t wish to profit from the new TLD process?). More fundamentally,
> the one-size-fits all fee structure skews the entire programme in favour
> of developed world, for-profit TLDs and constitutes a major barrier to
> entry for community-based TLDs and developing world applications. This
> is not acceptable. The fee structure should encourage new types of TLDs
> and not just those wishing to try and create the “next .com”.
> 
> Secondly, while ICANN’s compliance processes are improving slowly, they
> are far from robust for the existing handful of TLDs; they are certainly
> inadequate for the hundreds of new TLDs that the applicant guidebook
> estimates will result from the first application round. We do not see
> that the new TLD process has learnt any lessons from past problems with
> respect to ongoing TLD operations – this must be remedied in a way that
> the ICANN community as a whole finds persuasive and comprehensive.
> 
> Thirdly, we do not find evidence that ICANN understands that new TLDs
> should be of benefit not just to the operator, but also to the public at
> large. The objective of ICANN is not simply to grow an ever-larger
> market for domain names – it is to provide a venue for administration of
> a global critical resource for the benefit of the global public. This
> concept is almost entirely absent from the current process. Where are
> the mechanisms to help ensure that unscrupulous or criminal elements
> cannot almost effortlessly continue the abuses of the TLD space in new
> TLDs that they have been doing in existing TLDs – abuses that are a
> continuing and growing concern worldwide?
> 
> Fourthly, the ALAC has made very clear our strong objections to
> so-called “morality and public order” objections being any part of the
> new TLD process. ICANN is not an appropriate body to have any view on
> such matters, whether directly or indirectly. We find that the
> incomplete elements related to this are entirely insufficient and we
> call upon ICANN to make public all details related to its investigations
> to date with respect to this objection. It is very clear that what is in
> the guidebook is only a tiny part of what ICANN actually knows.
> Additionally, we find the idea that the International Chamber of
> Commerce would act as arbiter of these objections absurd. Until the
> entire process related to this objection is made clear, it is entirely
> inappropriate and irresponsible to be choosing a dispute resolution
> provider to handle them.
> 
> ALAC also believes that allowing a first TLD round to have hundreds of
> applications is completely irresponsible.  This is a major new area of
> work for ICANN; the first round should be reserved for those applicants
> who can demonstrate that they have been working on their applications
> for a considerable time (of which there are quite a few). After that
> round is completed, the process can then be fine-tuned to implement the
> lessons learned so that subsequent rounds can allow many more applicants
> to be handled expeditiously and transparently.
> 
> Finally, we have seen no evidence whatever that ICANN has a plan to
> handle the massive amount of new work that this programme will create.
> Considering the problem that the organisation has executing on its
> existing responsibilities, we believe that a comprehensive resourcing
> plan for the New GTLD programme must be a part of the consultation
> process on the application processes themselves.
> 
> In closing, we wish to make clear that as an Advisory Committee to the
> Board, we expect not only to receive confirmation that the Board has
> received this Advisory, but to see evidence that the board has actually
> discussed the advice we have provided and a written response to make
> clear the Board’s thinking on this issue. Indeed we believe that this is
> how advice from all Advisory Committees should be treated. 
> 
> We thank you in advance for your thoughts on this communication and we
> are at your service if you have any questions regarding it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <hr>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> 

--