Opposition to EOIs and New gTLDs - ICANN should fund this process and make it more open to new entrants.

["Jim Davies" <Jim.Davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am opposed to the concept of the new gTLDs, as currently presented.  I
have seen nothing that supports the alleged need for these new gTLDs,
other than the statements of those with a vested interest in the
process.  I see the EOI question as putting the cart before the horse -
there needs to be a proper review of the perceived need for these new
gTLDs before we get into detail like whether or not to set up an EOI
requirement.  I call upon ICANN to stop the process and have the matter
properly (and independently) reviewed by a number of disinterested but
expert third parties.

 

However, if the new gTLDs are to move forward, I think the EOI process
is flawed and also indicative of the motivation in the process -
generating money and empire building for those on the inside.  To
require a $55,000 non-refundable deposit (if the EOI simply fails to get
the new gTLD it expressed interest in) as a payment to a not-for-profit
organisation that is sitting on a large surplus (created only because of
its monopoly position) is quite inappropriate in my view.  

 

ICANN should use some of its money (which it holds on behalf of all
stakeholders) to fund this exercise.  If ICANN thinks there is demand
for new gTLDs from the internet community, then it would be a perfectly
proper way to spend some of its surplus to fund the exercise.  Find
another way to allow stakeholders to take part and to determine who
should be granted the rights to which new gTLD, a way that is equitable
and does not simply favour those with sufficient upfront funds to take a
chance with the sort of money required to participate in the proposed
EOI and new gTLD process as currently structured.  

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jim Davies