Comments on Delegation Rate Scenarios

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to commend the ICANN staff on the Delegation Rate Scenarios for 
New gTLDs report issued last month.  It is a well-conceived technical plan to 
deal with the introduction of New TLDs.

The interaction between the timeline work plan that the ICANN Board approved on 
October 28 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-work-plan-28oct10-en.pdf and 
certain time periods referenced in the report, however, does require some 
comment.

First, there is a reference to a 90-day application window in the report.  In 
prior presentations and discussions with ICANN staff, a 30-day application 
window had been discussed.  I'm not sure how the 30 days turned into a 90-day 
window in this report.  Tacking a 90-day window on after a four-month 
communications period does not make sense and is extremely unfair to 
applicants.  There is no need for such a long window in that the vast majority 
of applicants would wait for the end of the window to apply anyway.  According 
the the DAGv4, there is no benefit to applying early so why would an applicant 
pay $185,000 to ICANN early and risk the potential disclosure of its string?  
If most would apply at the end of the period anyway, then we might as well keep 
the window open for a short period of time.  

Also, ICANN first announced the introduction of New TLDs in June of 2008.  
Based on that announcement, many folks started planning for New TLDs at 
incredible expense.  They have been waiting -- some more patiently than others 
-- to apply.  It would be quite punitive to these applicants to have a full 
seven month period between the final approval date and when they likely will 
apply.  The GNSO guideline suggested that "[t]he application submission date 
will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal" -- it 
says nothing about the window being as long as 30 or even 90 days.  Thus, it 
makes the most sense to have the window open for only a 30-day period starting 
at the end of the communications period.  

If ICANN is convinced that an application window longer than 30 days is 
necessary for some unexplained reason, then there is no reason why ICANN can't 
start accepting applications during the communications period as long as the 
deadline is after the close of the period.  For example, the first 60 days of 
the application window could coincide with the last 60 days of the 
communications period, still giving applicants a full 30 days after the close 
of the communications period to apply.

The only argument I have heard for a three-month period after a full four-month 
communications period is that someone might hear about New TLDs for the first 
time during the communications period and need the full 90 days to apply.  
Therefore, the seven-month period is necessary in order not to exclude them.  
The fallacy in that argument is that it is a slippery slope -- if you hold the 
window open for a year maybe somewhere somebody will hear about the opportunity 
and be able to apply then -- where do you draw the line?  The GNSO drew it at 
four months -- we shouldn't almost double the GNSO recommendation.  ICANN has 
been announcing the introduction of New TLDs since 2008.  The four-month 
communications period recommendation was added in 2007 when we thought that the 
process would be over in 2009.  The costs to folks who have been planning for 
the application round and those waiting to decide what to do would far exceed 
the cost of someone not applying because they had a four-month period vs. a 
seven-month period to apply.  Finally, ICANN is planning on having multiple 
rounds of New TLDs.  Thus, if a person misses this round, they always could 
apply in the next round.  

The second timeline of concern mentioned in the report is the five-month period 
for initial evaluations and the suggested eight-month period between 
application and delegation for even the most simplest application -- the ones 
that have no objections and have the same technical back-end information as 
likely dozens previously reviewed.  ICANN needs to strive to do better on these 
time periods.  My hope is that ICANN is being incredibly conservative in these 
estimates and plans to be more efficient.  Considering the 10% unemployment 
rate in the United States, ICANN should be able to hire sufficient qualified 
staff to get this done on timely basis.  ICANN refers to a 250 day work year in 
the report.  There is no doubt that many qualified folks would be happy to work 
on weekends during this economic climate.  Let's let them.  

Let's stop punishing applicants by sucking them dry of all of their working 
capital by creating a seven-month communications/application period followed by 
a minimum eight-month review period piled on the years that they already have 
been waiting.  We could do better.  

Thanks for your consideration.

Best,

Jon  
President, Domain Dimensions, LLC