Re: [bc-gnso] Summary of BC member comments on Expression of Interest (EOI)

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

it certainly looks like we have a pretty strong tilt against the EOI.  i share 
that view.  thanks for pulling this together Steve.

mikey


On Feb 18, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

> the proposed plan for new gTLD Expression of Interest (EOI) will be discussed 
> in Nairobi and one of the few items likely the Board may vote on.
> 
> If the BC wants to have approved talking points for the GNSO session and 
> Board forum in Nairobi, we need to start the clock now on our required 14-day 
> comment period. 
> 
> Just in case the membership wants to have an official position in Nairobi, 
> please consider this note a draft of possible position points for discussion. 
> 
> Below I’ve shown major points from submissions by several members during 
> ICANN’s public comment period on the EOI proposal.  (Apologies if I’ve missed 
> other member comments.  Please bring them up on our BC Member call if this 
> topic merits further consideration.)
> 
> Philip Shepard, AIM ( 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00205.html  and  
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00149.html )
> 
>> 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.  (AIM)
>>  
>> 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. 
> 
> Ayesha Hassan, ICC ( 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00208.html  ) 
>> 
>> ICC does not support the implementation of any EoI until the rules for the 
>> new gTLD application process are developed and agreed upon by the ICANN 
>> community.- It is very difficult for business to evaluate participating in 
>> an EoI when new or changed gTLD application rules could significantly impact 
>> business plans and models. There are still several important issues that 
>> remain unresolved in the current Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), and it is 
>> not certain they will be resolved by DAG4. (ICC)
> 
>> An EoI is not a substitute for an independent economic analysis on the 
>> demand for new gTLDs, which was requested by the Board in October 2006 to be 
>> conducted prior to the launch of an EoI and the first application round.  
>> (ICC)
> 
> Steve DelBianco, NetChoice  ( 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00233.html ) 
>> ICANN’s Board should avoid taking a decision on EOI until the threshold 
>> question about its purpose is answered –is it data gathering or is it 
>> mandatory pre-registration for a specific string? There is no need for 
>> disclosure of strings if the EOI is just data gathering.  If it is mandatory 
>> pre-registration, then ICANN should finish the Applicant Guidebook and 
>> Registry Contract before asking applicants to file an EOI with a hefty fee. 
> 
> Chris Martin, USCIB ( 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00250.html )
> 
>> the EOI does not adequately recognize the need to have established rules in 
>> place in order for potential applicants to adequately assess their business 
>> strategies for any potential new gTLD application. The current model also 
>> appears to bypass the careful policymaking decisions that must go into the 
>> more fundamental questions surrounding new gTLDs.  In this way, the EOI 
>> process could be viewed as a backdoor to moving the larger gTLD process 
>> along without addressing those critical underlying issues, such as ensuring 
>> adequate safeguards for trademarks and ensuring the security and stability 
>> of the Internet.  An EOI also should not hinder the process for addressing 
>> these overarching issues and finalizing the rules for new gTLD applications. 
>> 
>> EOI initiative jumps ahead of more fundamental questions regarding new gTLDs 
>> and their effect on consumers, businesses and the security and stability of 
>> the Internet and domain name system. 
>> 
>> USCIB recognizes the potential usefulness of an EOI in gathering data that 
>> may inform ICANN about important issues associated with the rollout of new 
>> gTLDs. However, USCIB cannot support the implementation of an EOI initiative 
>> until the final rules for the application process are fully developed and 
>> agreed upon by the ICANN community. Serious issues still remain with the 
>> current Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), and it is unclear that the ICANN 
>> community will reach final consensus by DAG4 on many important issues.  As a 
>> result, USCIB members question how ICANN can expect potential new gTLD 
>> applicants to engage in a mandatory EOI process, with limited terms by which 
>> any investment deposit may be refunded, while the rules for applications are 
>> not yet finalized. It is extraordinarily difficult for business to even 
>> assess participating in an EOI when new or changed gTLD application rules 
>> could drastically impact business plans and models.   Vague guarantees to 
>> tackle key issues before the EOI begins are not enough; ICANN should be 
>> explicit in determining exactly what key issues must be final before an EOI 
>> begins.
>> 
>> two issues cited in the draft model, vertical separation and 3-character 
>> requirements for IDN strings, must be finalized before EOI moves forward. 
>> The community should agree upon brand protections, rules on background 
>> checks, financial disclosures, lack of conflicts of interest, IPv6 and the 
>> technical requirements, as well as the ability to maintain a registry. The 
>> rules for new gTLD applications must be clear and final before businesses 
>> with interests in submitting applications for new gTLDs can participate in 
>> an EOI. 
>>  
>> As a further point regarding the role of an EOI as an information source, 
>> ICANN should be careful in recognizing that while an EOI can help provide 
>> information on the number of new gTLDs that are likely to be applied for, 
>> such an indicator does not equate with public/registrant demand for new 
>> gTLDs. USCIB believes that an EOI would measure the demand for supply of new 
>> gTLDs, as opposed to the economic demand for new gTLDs themselves.  Given 
>> this differentiation, an EOI cannot substitute for the promised independent 
>> economic analysis on the demand for new gTLDs. ICANN should quickly 
>> implement the Board’s October 2006 request that such a study be conducted 
>> prior to launching the first application round for new gTLDs.
>> 
>> USCIB supports ICANN’s logic in developing parts of its model, such as the 
>> need for a reasonable deposit fee and a global communication campaign.  
>> USCIB agrees with ICANN’s logic for an EOI fee at a level that balances the 
>> competing needs of being high enough to deter speculation but low enough to 
>> ensure the fee is not a barrier to entry.  The overall EOI should not, 
>> however, be a cost-generator and any deposit or participation in an EOI 
>> should not be viewed by the applicant as a promise that they will be awarded 
>> a new gTLD, nor a basis to engage in raising capital and investors
>> 
> Mike Palage    ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00124.html ) 
>  
>> Hmmm... it’s nearly impossible to summarize Mike Palage, but here’s why he 
>> says, “Just say No”:
>>  
>> The EOI Raises Major Public Policy Considerations on Which the Government 
>> Advisory Committee (GAC) Has Not Been Able to Meaningfully Provide Advice.
>> 
>> The creation of a secondary market for gTLD applicant slots that could be 
>> bought and sold prior to the commencement of the actual new gTLD application 
>> process
>> 
>> ICANN requesting financial commitment from prospective gTLD applicants prior 
>> to the publication/approval of the final Applicant Guidebook
>> 
>> The Process Envisioned Violates Article III, Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws
>> 
>> The Proposal Violates Both the Letter & Spirit of the Affirmation of 
>> Commitments
>> 
>> 
> CADNA ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00241.html )
> 
>> CADNA does not believe that ICANN should move forward with the EOI model as 
>> proposed. There remain a variety of problems with the Guidebook that ICANN 
>> has yet to resolve, including the potential for infringement, malicious 
>> conduct, and compromised Internet security. Moving forward with the EOI 
>> would undermine the bottom-up policy development process currently at work.  
>> ICANN should focus on addressing the concerns that have yet to be adequately 
>> addressed and its Draft Applicant Guidebooks, such as the demand for such a 
>> launch, its possible effects on the domain name space, business and Internet 
>> users alike, and trademark protection concerns. 
>> 
>> By requiring participation in the EOI for access to the first round of new 
>> TLD applications, ICANN is essentially asking applicants to agree to 
>> participate without knowing how the final process will take shape.
>> 
>> While the EOI is being billed as a process by which to gauge demand, it is 
>> not structured in a way that would gather information and study demand; 
>> instead, with participation in the EOI mandatory for eligibility in the 
>> first application round for new TLDs and a $55,000 price tag, the EOI only 
>> serves to move up the process of applying for a TLD. This mechanism will 
>> play on the fear of potentially being “left behind,” will artificially 
>> inflate demand and ultimately squander the opportunity to genuinely study 
>> the demand for new TLDs.
>> 
>> demand demonstrated during the EOI may pressure ICANN to move forward with 
>> gTLDs before resolving these problems. In the EOI proposal, ICANN states 
>> that there is a possibility that parties will push for changes to the 
>> Guidebook based on the published list of strings defined during the EOI 
>> process. Although ICANN points out that it is important to avoid such an 
>> occurrence, it provides no suggestions or ideas for how to go about 
>> preventing it. It is crucial that this process is not a black box –all 
>> members of the Internet community must have access to the list of 
>> applied-for strings and applicants. CADNA recommends that ICANN make this 
>> information available as it happens. This would also be beneficial if the 
>> way that an EOI application reserves TLD strings is on a first-come, 
>> first-served basis. If all members of the Internet community do not have 
>> access to the list of applied-for strings and applicants, they will be 
>> forced to waste time applying for strings that are already taken. To promote 
>> fair competition, potential applicants should have the opportunity to see 
>> what strings are being registered so they can better weigh their decision 
>> regarding whether to participate in the EOI.
> 
> 
> For ICANN staff summary of the 370 comments received, see 
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-15feb10-en.pdf 
> 
> -- 
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org 
> +1.202.420.7482 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)