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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve, thanks for developing this, and in particular, for including the 
comments of the BC members who filed in the public comment process at ICANN. I 
would like to add a further point or two, as an individual member to the points 
made by members.  In my view, the $55,000 fee actually creates an implied 
liability for ICANN to both proceed with new gTLDs, and indeed, perhaps with 
that particular gTLD, when they accept such a large fee -- easily 1/3 of the 
proposed full application fee. Secondly, this fee level discriminates against 
applicants from developing countries and non profit entities. Thirdly, I 
believe that it creates pressure on Global Brand entities.  
I also think that the GAC has considerable to say about this. CADNA, USCIB, and 
Palage all capture some of the informational points that I personally would 
find useful as an approach for a position statement, should the membership 
support a joint statement. 
I did support a non binding, very low fee expression of interests, but noted 
that the Guidebook needs to be finished and the four overarching issues 
addressed before that 'survey of interest' took place. I made those points in a 
public statement at an event that ICANN held in Washington, DC, but apparently, 
they were not summarized into the record, although that was my expectation. So, 
I am repeating them -- as an individual member of the BC. Finally, I am 
personally strongly opposed to undertaking an EOI until the overarching issues 
are addressed. ICANN seems to think this is a way to address the economic 
analysis. I've written extensively on that point elsewhere so won't repeat it 
here. 
As chair, I will note that some of our members have different views, which need 
to also be considered. As you develop the process, can you establish a 
mechanism to ensure that the views of all are taken by email on the topic of a 
BC position? That can happen very quickly. I am not sure that we will have 
sufficient turn out on the BC call, so want to ensure that members have the 
'heads up' you are providing by posting this ahead of the call. 
Thanks for your work on this. 
Marilyn CadeChair===========================================================
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