Please Issue a Final Applicant Guidebook

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Writing in my personal capacity.

Dear ICANN Staff and Board,

Thank you very much for your years of patience, stamina and hard work  
on the introduction of new gTLDs.
I've attended many ICANN meetings and sessions on the topic and am  
continually amazed by the entire community's efforts and faithfulness  
to the bottom-up consensus building multi-stakeholder process.
However, I do have a grave concern.  In order for the bottom-up  
consensus building process to work, we need each participant to be  
dedicated to reaching consensus.  I'm afraid in the last year I have  
seen a growing rift in the community, where constituents are digging  
in their heels around a certain topic rather then striving for  
consensus and conclusion. It seems to me the some groups are calling  
for further delay for any reason.
An example of this are the comments asking for the GPML to be added to  
the DAG.  This idea was not strongly supported by the IRT panel, and  
most people in the ICANN community felt it was a bad idea.  There was  
no consensus.  That is why it didn't make the DAG3 cut. Yet there are  
comments on the DAG3 from BBC, Hearst, and Adobe complaining that the  
GPML is missing. Does this now mean the GPML will be added to the next  
version?
Please ICANN staff and board, close an issue when it has been decided  
by consensus (or lack of!) from the community.  Endless rounds of  
comments have my head spinning.  More and more often I find myself  
asking, "Wait, isn't this an issue I heard about 3 years ago? Wasn't  
that topic decided by the gNSO last year?"  In order to protect  
ICANN's role as a LEADER in establishing the FORWARD movement of the  
internet, we need to have some FINAL decision making.
I'm all for world peace and the end of hunger, but I don't expect  
those issues to be solved in an gTLD applicant guidebook.
The ICANN model is amazing. It is slow but works well. Some  
concessions must be made.  Folks standing in the way of ICANN's  
mission and mandate need to work toward consensus rather than continue  
to carry the "STALL MORE LONGER!" banner.  This tactic only works if  
the ICANN staff and board permits it.
Remember your mandate to introduce competition and innovation in the  
domain name space.  As constituents lose faith in this process because  
of delay after delay, the model erodes.  Its time to act. You risk  
extreme loss of credibility otherwise.
Let the market decide if there is demand for new TLDs.  We don't need  
an economic report. It was made clear from the inserts in the bags at  
the Seoul ICANN meeting, 90% of them were selling new gTLD services.   
If providers did not sense market demand they would not gear up for  
providing those services.
If the City of Paris did not believe there was a demand for .PARIS  
domain names they would not have issued an RFP and chosen a registry  
partner to provide those services. This government expressed faith in  
the ICANN promise of introduction of new gTLDs. How long are they  
expected to remain in a holding pattern?
Demand is not missing.  A time line is. My friends already have a  
difficult time understanding how I spend a majority of my work hours.  
Please give us a FINAL Applicant Guidebook and an application opening  
date so everyone will know we're for real.
With Very Best Regards,

Elaine Pruis