Strong support for EoI proposal

[Alexander Schwertner | EPAG Domainservices GmbH <as@xxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN,

thanks for the opportunity to submit a comment on the proposed EoI
procedure.

I strongly support the Expression of Interest procedure.

In my opinion, an EoI would be a practical way of gathering valueable
data that helps solving some of the remaining "overarching issues" that
have delayed the process of introducing new TLDs again and again.

Being a visitor to the ICANN meeting in Paris, I left that meeting with
a fairly strong confidence that we see the first new TLD going live in
the first quarter of 2010. Now it's 2010, and since Paris, we have spent
an enormous amount of resources on debate and discussions over new TLDs,
but haven't made much progress on actually *starting* the application
process. Not a single new TLD will go live this year!

Of course, opening the root zone changes the TLD landscape dramatically
and does relate not only to the functionality of the Internet itself,
but also affects adjacent areas, the most prominent being trademarks.
Therefore, I agree that all those questions and possible impacts require
thoughtful consideration to mitigate the risks involved in enlarging the
TLD space. Yet, I think the past 5 years of discussion on new TLDs
within the community and with all the stakeholders involved do in fact
fully qualify as "thoughtful consideration."

Not it's due time to wrap up and eventually shift from "talking about"
to "doing it". ICANN needs to provide evidence that the organisation is
demonstrably able to meet obvious market demand for new TLDs, foster
competition in the TLD space and eventually enlarge consumers choice. It
is an illusion to think ALL questions and issues can be 100% resolved
before we start new TLDs. If innovation were generally to work that way,
there wouldn't be innovation at all.

The EoI procedure can, while incurring virtually no additional cost to
applicants, provide early answers to questions as to "how many new TLDs
will there be?" or "which strings will be applied for?". With these
answers, an EoI would help resolve issues on
- root scaling
- resource planning
- string contention
- morality and public order concerns
- trademark issues

Moreover an EoI is a first tangible step towards their TLD for all those
applicants who stand in line waiting for it, some of them for many years.

ICANN has voiced its commitment to ensure that new TLDs and the EoI
shall not be constrained to ICANN insiders. I totally agree. But the
process so far has been a nightmare regarding the communication of new
TLD opportunities to potential applicants (such as companies or local
governments). Our company has been trying to do this for quite a while
now. Having to tell those parties about ever shifting timelines and a
continuous stream of new hurdles, not only we struggle to not loose our
credibility - the whole ICANN process is discredited. An EoI launch date
would be the first firm and definite thing we could tell those potential
applicants in a long time, trying to get back their confidence.

Regarding the details of the EoI proposal, I think a mandatory $55,000
fee is very useful. There must be an entry fee to the EoI high enough in
order to prevent gaming and provide useful results. The proposed sum is
equal to the non-refundable portion of the $185,000 application fee, so
to "real" applicants (and only those should be attracted by an EoI) it
is not an additional cost, just earlier in time.

There should be a refund either if final applications for nTLDs are not
accepted within 18 months after an EoI has been filed (refund
mandatory), or if the rules in the Applicant Guidebook have changed in a
way that prohibits an application or a string which would have been
eligible at the time the EoI is submitted (refund on ICANN's discretion).

Participation in the EoI must of course be mandatory for becoming
eligible to file a full application later on, otherwise applicants would
chose to not disclose their plans in an EoI for competitive reasons, and
the EoI results would be of little value.

A communication period should be held prior to the opening of the EoI
window. At least for the German market I would hold that there has been
intensive communication on new TLDs already, including numerous
dedicated events for interested companies and local governments. So I
would expect that all potential applicants in this market do already
know about new TLDs. Yet, ICANN has a global mission, and the story
might not have been told that intensely in other markets, so to avoid
the argument new TLDs were only for insiders, a global communications
campaign is necessary. While the period of four months might be
agreeable, what's much more important to me is that communication
actually starts as soon as possible once the decision for an EoI is
made. Waiting another 6 months before the actual communication can begin
would be devastating for the whole process.

I am in favor of both the applicants and the strings applied for are to
be made public - but only after the EoI submitting window has concluded.
This detail of *when exactly* the information is being made public is
not included in the draft yet, and I think it's important to clarify
this. Making this information public during the EoI submitting window
would have numerous adverse effects, probably bringing competing EoIs on
the scene which wouldn't have been there if the information wasn't made
public, or enticing everyone to submit their EoI in the very last minute
to not disclose their plans too early. Applicants and strings should be
made public after the EoI window closes, because ICANN should not hold
confidential information for longer as imperatively necessary, and in
order to provide the transparent results which the EoI has been
anticipated for.

I encourage ICANN and the board to move forward with an EoI procedure as
soon as possible - it will be a substantial step forward on the path
towards new TLDs and help to resolve the remaining open issues.


Alexander Schwertner
Managing Director

EPAG Domainservices GmbH
Rheinallee 3
53173 Bonn
Germany
http://www.epag.de