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

[William Drake]

Hello,

Thanks to Patrick, Adam and others for pushing this forward.   
Appending regional comments to the ALAC statement seems like a good  
idea.  I wonder though about the key sentence, "EURALO does not  
support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process."  I'm not  
clear on how this conclusion fits with the laundry list of concerns  
raised in both the EURALO and ALAC texts.  Together, they say we want  
ICANN to rethink registry/registrar separations; amend the guide's  
requirements regarding the use of registrars; have a different  
approval process for geographical, community bounded, non-commercial,  
not-for-profit gTLDs; change the one-size-fits all fee structure;  
improve compliance processes; build in public interest oriented  
mechanisms; get rid of MAPO objections; drop ICC arbitration; change  
the number of applications contemplated in the first round; and  
develop a comprehensive resourcing plan for the new gTLD program.  How  
could addressing all these concerns not involve delays in the  
process?  Can we really have it both ways?  Would we be happy if the  
board cited the "no delays" headline conclusion as support for moving  
forward, but then didn't address fully the concerns raised?  Is that a  
far-fetched scenario?

Just wondering,

Bill

On Jan 25, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> <ALAC-Comments-gTLD Guide.odt><ALAC-Comments-gTLD  
> Guide.doc>_______________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************