ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on DAG 3

  • To: "3gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx" <3gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comments on DAG 3
  • From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:06 +0000

Dear Sir / Madam

Please find below my comments on the latest draft guidebook.

These are divided into two sections

The first section deals specifically with the current text, while the second 
deals with the new TLD project in general


While I can understand that ICANN does not want "bad actors" to apply for new 
TLDs the second set of criteria for disqualification needs to be clarified. At 
present it is not very clear what the boundaries are. A "pattern" is probably 
more than one, but how many?
There have been several cases over the years where WIPO (and other arbiters) 
have made decisions that may not have "stood up" in court. It would, therefore, 
be prudent to offer some mechanism where an applicant can challenge a 
disqualification on this basis (if such a mechanism is already there I couldn't 
see it)

"required documents"

The "proof of good standing" - what exactly does this refer to?

Any and all documentation that is required should be clearly described by ICANN 
- "proof of good standing" is not clear, yet if an applicant fails to provide 
it their application would be rejected


I am still of the view that the fees should take into consideration the type of 
application / TLD being sought. While a commercial entity may not have an issue 
with the 185k fee, smaller, community based TLDs would have issues with this
While it could be argued that the fee shows a level of commitment, the 
financial data already being requested should surely suffice ie. access to 
funds etc., which are requested in the financial data section

Also, ICANN's delays in proceeding with the new TLD project should be taken 
into consideration with the application fee being dropped by 5% for every month 
of further delay. 

The comment on "revenue neutrality" is bizarre. 

Module 3 - Disputes

"Objections must be filed in English" - why?

It's 2009. English is not the only language in use. Forcing people to object in 
English only is unreasonable. In other parts of the guidebook it is made clear 
that documents do not need to be translated into English, so why here?

"response filing fee" - I fail to see how this makes any sense. If someone 
wants to object to a TLD application that is one thing, but forcing an 
applicant to pay a fee to defend themselves does not seem reasonable

The "morality" section should be removed in its entirety.

Most of the issues that are explicitly  filed under "morality" could just as 
easily be covered under "illegal activities". However it is very dangerous 
ground for ICANN to introduce any language related to "morals".
It is not ICANN's remit to concern itself with society's moral values. 

Module 5

The logic behind some of the fees being put forward here is bizarre:

"expenditures made to accomplish the objectives set out in
ICANN’s mission statement, these funds enable the support
required for new gTLDs, including: contractual
compliance, registry liaison, increased registrar
accreditations, and other registry support activities"

Registrar accreditation is not free and should be covered by the accreditation 
application fee. It could also be argued that more accreditations would lead to 
greater efficiencies and reduced costs

At present there seems to be a lack of cohesion between the various registry 
operators in how they handle registrar accreditation. While most registries 
need the same basic set of data from each registrar, the current method of 
collecting this information is unwieldy and causes unnecessary work for both 
registrars and registries. If there is to be an "explosion" in both the number 
of registries (TLDs) and registrars, then this data collection methodology 
should be streamlined and possibly centralised. I am referring to the 
"registrar data" forms - not to the actual accreditation agreements / contracts 
with the respective registries.

The registry operator fees section includes a clear reference to a minimum of 
25k. Considering that at least one current TLD registry currently pays less 
than 1k per annum this component should be revised. 

This document does not make much reference to WHOIS apart from specifying its 
existence. Previously there was reference to WHOIS with a clear indication that 
"thick whois" was preferred. However no assurances with respect to registrant 
privacy appear to have been forthcoming. This matter needs to be addressed. If 
ICANN can "get it right" with .tel, why can't they do the same with the new TLDs

Since the "big announcement" at ICANN Paris plenty of time has passed, There 
has been plenty of discussion about various "issues". ICANN needs to stop 
pandering to a small number of interests and move forward with the new TLDs.

ICANN needs to provider applicants and the community with clear timelines. 

During the meeting in Korea the concept of "expressions of interest" was put 
forward as an aid to let ICANN get a better view of what it is actually dealing 
with. I would be of the view that such a concept may be beneficial. While it is 
not perfect, the current endless debates are not either

ICANN expects a lot of applicants, so it is only reasonable that it delivers as 



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy