On the dates the application acceptance window opens, and closes
- To: delegation-rate-scenarios@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: On the dates the application acceptance window opens, and closes
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:40:45 -0500
I want to point out that one of the "frequently asked questions" that
have been addressed to the soac-newgtldapsup-wg members, but some
members of the ICANN Board of Directors, and others, is whether an
applicant who is needs qualified for some unspecified assistance in
the application phase can meet the ongoing operational costs of
running a successful registry.
Now I want to draw attention to my friend Jon Nevett's concluding
point, one endorsed by several other commenters:
"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."
Jon's claim is that some applicants should be protected from some
additional investment cost at the expense of other applicants who
should loose/defer all of their investment if they close their
application (funding, ancilliary commitments, contracts, authoring,
submittal) on days 32 to 90 after the application window opens.
This revisits the "early closure to competition" purpose of the
"Expression of Intent" proposed by the orchestrated rush on the mic at
the Seoul meeting.
A phrase worth repeating is this: "ICANN and the DOC recognize that
there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a
greater extent than Internet users generally."
I would like to point out that Board Resolution 2010.03.12.46-47
clearly expressed the need to ensure that the New gTLD Program is
Suppose one were to ask: "Why these applicants, those who complete
their applications on days 32-90, cannot just wait until the next round?"
With every new gTLD application round, the market competitive
disadvantage increases. ICANN should not cause or allow the New gTLD
Program to further the gap in gTLD Registry representation between
those who engage in ICANN's processes to the greatest extent, and
those who do not yet participate to this extent. ICANN has the
obligation to look closely into this issue and fulfill its
responsibility to serve the global public interest by allowing
accessibility and competition for all around the world.
In addition to the privilege early closure conveys to this group of
participants, there is the contradiction of the claim that economic
weakness -- "sucking them dry of all of their working capital" --
should provide any privilege at all, and the claim made elsewhere,
apparently by some Board members and others, that applicants who
request assistance will fail, and therefore are not going to be
benefited by assistance, or have a merit claim to assistance.
My complements to the other commenters, most of whom I know
personally, but the opportunity cost of 60 days is not sufficient to
risk the entire schedule on, particularly the agreeable, but abrupt,
settlement upon a fixed schedule at the Oct. 26th meeting of the
Board, as reflected in the work plan of that date.
Thank you for keeping comments on this subject open.
in a personal capacity