INDOM comments on version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is INDOM's opinion that the heavily restrictive language found in Article 
1.2.1 of Module 1 and Articles 2.9a, 2.9b and 2.9c of the proposed new gTLD 
Agreement, were it to be implemented in the Final Guidebook, would arbitrarily 
discriminate against ICANN-accredited registrars.

Preventing any ICANN-accredited registrar from providing assistance of any kind 
to prospective new gTLD applicants would unfairly exclude applicants intending 
to use registrar expertise to help them build their application. They would be 
left with no choice but to use existing registries or new actors that do not 
yet have a proven track record.

This seems to contradict the very first paragraph of the Applicant Guidebook 
which states that: "The new gTLD program will open up the top level of the 
Internet's namespace to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance 
the utility of the DNS." Excluding registrars from the program defeats all 3 of 
these objectives.

ICANN-accredited registrars have, in many cases, become experts in handling the 
administrative and technical requirements of building and running registry 
systems. Many have also gained invaluable experience from working with ccTLDs. 
Registrars should also be able to offer consultancy services to prospective 
applicants, even if they do not work on the application itself.

DAGv4 also excludes registrars from applying for their own TLD (say a .INDOM in 
our case), even through a non-registrar third party, as they would obviously be 
involved in the application and therefore barred under current rules. This is 
as unjustified as it is unfounded.

Some may argue that the DAGv4 provisions that exclude registrars from providing 
any kind of service to Registry Operators are part of the policy development 
work currently undertaken by the community. We disagree. Even if there was a 
desire to maintain full separation, there is no reason to exclude 
ICANN-accredited registrars from working on a TLD application. The full 
separation objective would still be obtained by implementing rules preventing 
an ICANN-accredited registrar from selling domains in any TLD it is involved in 
as a provider of registry services of any kind.

Therefore, even if restrictions on registrar cross-ownership were to be 
maintained in the Final Applicant Guidebook, we suggest that Article 1.2.1 of 
Module 1 be amended so that the following paragraph is deleted: "Further, 
applications where the applicant has engaged an ICANN-accredited registrar, 
reseller, or any other form of distributor or any of their Affiliates (or any 
person or entity acting on their behalf) to provide any registry services for 
the TLD will not be approved." The relevant articles in the proposed new gTLD 
Agreement should also be deleted.

With the Guidebook as it is currently written, those with in-depth domain name 
expertise are excluded, except existing registries.  Entities without this 
expertise would be accepted.  This is akin to giving a license to provide 
medical services to anyone except doctors.

We feel the forced exclusion of ICANN-accredited registrars from the new gTLD 
program is unfounded, detrimental to consumer and applicant choice and would 
lead incumbents in the registry market to enjoy unfair protectionism. It must 
not be implemented in the Final Guidebook.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Stéphane Van Gelder

General manager

INDOM.COM