[EURO-Discuss] Commentaires à propos du cahier des charges pour les nouveaux TLD

Rudi Vansnick rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
Wed Jan 21 02:55:37 EST 2009


A small comment I would like to bring to the group after having
consulted several organisations community based and with respect to the
local government expecting some liberalization of the Internet domain
name space.

Small communities looked with great eyes to the offer to participate in
the Internet world by means of new GTLD's. Several organisations spend a
enormous budget in trying to understand the process and policy behind
this action. But, the pressure of large business and commercial benefit
is destroying their dreams ... unlucky again ?
For that reason we ask and require the split of the proposal into 2
parts : the geographical, community bounded, non-commercial,
not-for-profit and by government guaranteed GTLD's should have the
opportunity to enter their proposals as soon as possible with a low
entry fee. The second part/phase would be for commercial organisations,
having an initial goal of benefit. And as such considered being more
generic than geographic oriented.

That's what I would go for and I hope, together with those I'm
representing here (ISOC Belgium members and local government) ICANN will
respect the rights of each human getting together in smaller communities.

Rudi Vansnick
President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw
Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council
Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN)

/Dendermondesteenweg 143
B-9070 Destelbergen
Belgium
GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/
www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be>  - www.isoc.eu <http://www.isoc.eu>  -
www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org>



Patrick Vande Walle schreef:
> One point of explanation for those who were not in the teleconference
> yesterday.
> We agreed the Euralo would submit comments on the gTLD applicant's guide.
> The strawman proposal was a blog post I did a month ago, in French.
>
> I am a bit at loss with the deadline for submitting comments. According to
> the French page on the ICANN web site, the deadline was 7 January. I can
> find no reference that the deadline was extended for comments that are not
> in English. Please advise.
>
> I will try to incorporate the gist of Vittorio's (long) comment, as well as
> Beau's and Adam remarks. 
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:04:50 +0900, Adam Peake <ajp op glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>   
>> At 5:31 PM +0100 1/20/09, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>>     
>>> This was my blog post. Please comments to the list ASAP.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>       
>> As I mentioned on the call I agree with the two 
>> main points of Patrick's blog comment: the 
>> process is to costly, and ICANN the issue of 
>> morality and public order is problematic.  Beau 
>> Brendler's comments on the morality and public 
>> order issue are good:
>>
>>
>>     
>>> The user community questions, in general, 
>>> whether ICANN is the appropriate venue to 
>>> adjudicate morality and public order. But 
>>> specifically, we strongly object to the notion 
>>> that objections based on morality and public 
>>> order will be considered by the International 
>>> Chamber of Commerce. The ICC has not 
>>> demonstrated a credible track record of 
>>> representing consumer and non-commercial 
>>> interests. It is an interest group made up of 
>>> business concerns. We support and agree with the 
>>> NCUC's concerns in this regard. We would like to 
>>> see discussion opened immediately, before the 
>>> new gTLD program is implemented, with the goal 
>>> to surface and consider other organizations to 
>>> fill this role, whose policy interests are not 
>>> so circumscribed.
>>>
>>>       
>> I think we could adopt Beau's words in this case. 
>> See 
>>
>>     
> <https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?resource_page_for_alac_statement_on_new_gtld_guidebook>
>   
>> for work being done by ALAC on these comments.
>>
>> About cost.  I would prefer to refer to 
>> Vittorio's example, see version here 
>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00022.html> 
>> I think more relevant to more grass roots 
>> interests.  Or to use both Vittorio and the 
>> .cities comment.
>>
>> A simple addition following comments I made last night:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Other issues?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Commentaires envoyés à l¹ICANN concernant les nouveaux noms de
>>>       
> domaines
>   
>>> Comme de nombreux autres intervenants, je m¹interroge au sujet du coût
>>> lié tant à la soumission qu¹à l¹exploitation d¹un TLD attribué
>>> dans le cadre de cet exercice.
>>>
>>> De fait, les coûts figurant actuellement dans le cahier des charges
>>> induisent le choix politique de gTLD vendant les noms de domaine en
>>> nombre.
>>> Il n¹y a pas de place dans le processus actuel pour des gTLD visant une
>>> communauté limitée. Il semble difficilement imaginable qu¹un registre
>>> vendant moins de 200.000 noms de domaine par an puisse survivre, compte
>>> tenu de la concurrence sur les prix entre TLD.
>>>
>>> Par ailleurs, il peut s¹écouler plus d¹un an entre la soumission du
>>> dossier et le lancement de l¹exploitation commerciale du TLD. Cela
>>> implique une lourde charge financière, qui suppose que les
>>> soumissionnaires disposent d¹une solide trésorerie. Ce n¹est pas le
>>> cas des start-ups. Cela pose donc une barrière à l¹entrée qui
>>>       
> favorise
>   
>>> les acteurs historiques, qui ne devront pas supporter de tels coûts,
>>> puisqu¹ils disposent déjà de tout le nécessaire: personnel,
>>> infrastructure et revenus réguliers
>>>
>>> Ailleurs dans le document, il est demandé de présenter dans le dossier
>>> de
>>> candidature les comptes annuels d¹exercices précédents. Cela implique
>>> à nouveau que des start-ups, ou des sociétés non-encore légalement
>>> formées ne pourront pas soumissionner.
>>>
>>> Notons également que la nécessité de présenter dans le dossier de
>>> candidature l¹infrastructure technique qui sera utilisée.  La
>>> conséquence est que le soumissionnaire devra choisir, dès le départ 
>>>       
> un
>   
>>> gestionnaire technique (backend registry services provider).  Du point de
>>> vue commercial, il serait pourtant avantageux que la mise en concurrence
>>> des prestataires techniques puissent se faire après la première ou la
>>> deuxième phase du processus d¹acceptation du dossier par l¹ICANN. Cela
>>> offrirait une position de négociation plus avantageuse au
>>> soumissionnaire.
>>>
>>> Dans le contexte économique et financier actuel, il est plus que
>>>       
> probable
>   
>>> que de nouveaux entrepreneurs ne seront pas en mesure de concurrencer les
>>> opérateurs établis et donc d¹offrir de véritables alternatives si
>>> l¹ICANN ne révise pas fondamentalement à la baisse tant le droit de
>>> soumission que la contribution annuelle.
>>>
>>> A ce titre, je soutiens la proposition citée dans les commentaires de
>>> dotCities ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00086.htm ) et
>>> ajoutant que cela peut s¹appliquer à de nombreux cas de TLD visant des
>>> communautés limitées en nombre.
>>>
>>> Il convient également d¹éclaircir et de chiffrer le montant du
>>> remboursement possible si le soumissionnaire décide de retirer son
>>> dossier.  Il est important pour tous les candidats qu¹ils soient en
>>> mesure de présenter un plan financier clair à leurs bailleurs de fonds.
>>> Dans ce domaine, le cahier des charges doit être limpide, y compris, et
>>> surtout pour les différentes phases d¹évaluation que l¹ICANN fera
>>> sous-traiter auprès de consultants externes, que les candidats devront
>>> rémunérer directement.
>>>
>>> Concernant la problématique de la ³moralité et de l¹ordre public²,
>>> il est nécessaire  d¹insister sur le fait qu¹en cette matière
>>> l¹ICANN doit strictement se limiter à la chaine de caractères
>>> constituant le TLD. Toute présomption concernant les domaines de second
>>> niveau qui pourraient être enregistrés sous ce TLD, ou sur le contenu
>>>       
> de
>   
>>> sites web utilisant ce TLD, seraient clairement en dehors du mandat de
>>> l¹ICANN.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>> EURO-Discuss op 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
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss op 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
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss op 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1904 - Release Date: 20/01/2009 7:49
>
>   




More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list