Dear all,
We support Ayesha's call for more dialogue within the BC on this
matter.
There appear to be a number of diverging perspectives that need deeper
discussion -- preferably in a face-to-face meeting, but could also
be on
list.
For the record, our views on EOIs are in opposition to Philip's. I
am also
hereby declaring our interest in applying for .SPORT.
We don't agree that the EIO:
(1) is a 'distraction', rather a good addition to the process for
ICANN
staff to gain much needed information
(2) is an 'unreversable pre-registration', as the ability to get a
refund is
incorporated in the current DAG
(3) is an issue of 'inconsistency' -- every round of new TLDs has
been an
exercise in developing a new set of rules to provide for that
particular
rollout; this round is no different in that regard
(4) will 'cause brands to register' to hold off speculators as,
again, there
are provisions in the DAG to that allows brand owners to oppose; the
second
concept of 'tip-off' is a non-issue. If one thinks that their
"special
string" can be kept secret to avoid competition, they are dreaming.
Irrespective of whether one submits their EOI in the opening round
or not,
ICANN processes are long and transparent and no one will be able to
shepherd
their application in a way that 'protects' them from scrutiny of
others
(5) would 'enable speculators' to take an interest in a TLD and then
flip it
to another entity between the EOI and the next step in the process;
even if
such a concept were to happen (as unlikely a scenario as it is) it
would be
noted and addressed in the "2nd round" to ensure it would never happen
again;
(6) 'forces applicants to invest blind' because no one is forcing
anyone to
do anything; those that are prepared to step forward and declare their
interest with the understanding the that the overarching issues will
be
resolved, take that initiative willingly.
In summary, we don't think that the arguments Philip posted hold
water and
therefore submit that they should not be adopted as a BC position.
However,
as always, we encourage individual member postings on this topic in
the
public forum. For those who may be interested, my comments to the
first
call for comments on this topic are noted here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/msg00004.html
Sincerely,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
HASSAN Ayesha
Sent: 2010-01-18 05:06
To: Philip Sheppard; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration
Dear Philip,
It may be also be helpful to consider the following:
*This is an important proposal for the community to consider, and it
should be discussed more fully at the ICANN Nairobi meeting (not
decided
in February if that is the plan)
*Difficult for business to assess the EoI given that the final
application process for new gTLDs is still being developed; both will
impact broader business.
*Running two important comment periods simultaneously (Affirmation
reviews and EoI) and over the holidays and new year period, makes it
difficult for some organizations to effectively run their own internal
consensus building processes to provide substantive comments on both
topics.
Best regards,
Ayesha
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: lundi 18 janvier 2010 10:56
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration
This is out for consultation.
The public comment period opens on 18 December 2009 and closes on 27
January
2010. Details at:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#draft-eoi
<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#draft-eoi>
My draft initial comments are as follows.
Comments ?
If there is consensus / support I'd be happy to write something up
as a
BC
position.
Philip
--------------------
We oppose the concept of pre-registration and expressions of interest
(EOI) for
the following reasons.
1. Distraction
The EOI process should not distract ICANN from the fundamental task of
addressing unresolved issues relating to new TLDs such as trade mark
protection
and malicious conduct.
2. A true pre-registration
The proposed mandatory EOI process with a $55,000 fee is described
as a
pre-registration suggesting that it is not reversible regardless of
the
unresolved overarching issues such as trade mark protection and
malicious
conduct.
3. Inconsistency
The principle of pre-registration is inconsistent with all previous
ICANN
practice.
4. Ignores market dynamics
Brand owners may feel compelled to enter into an EOI purely for
defensive
reasons, so that they do not suffer when a speculator is given
rights in
their
brand. There seems to be no facility to allow competition for the
same
domain
names after pre-registration. Moreover, pre-registration may tip-off
competitors
to new business models prematurely.
5. A lower than market fee may encourage speculation
Speculators may pay $55,000 to secure rights to certain domains
instead
of
$185,000 in the hope of selling on. This is surely not the intent of
ICANN's
Board.
6. Applicants are forced to invest blind
Because there are unresolved issues, the pre-registration model forces
applications in ignorance of potential future costs. This is poor
business
practice.
Philip Sheppard