DotGreen Non-profit Registry's Comments to EOI for new gTLDs

[Annalisa Roger <annalisaroger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-- 

*Comments from *

*The DotGreen Non-profit Registry *

*to*

*ICANN’s Public Comment Forum *

*RE: Expressions of Interest for new gTLDs*

* *



*In response to: “More worldwide public promotion needed before opening
newTLD application time to avoid unfair head start by some.”*

As a possible gTLD applicant, DotGreen Registry thinks those who consider
themselves current gTLD applicants have not had an unfair “headstart” simply
because they have followed the globally published ICANN announcements,
process and timeline.   ICANN conferences are open to the public; new gTLD
updates have been published widely and have been available on the ICANN
website for years now.  In addition, many of these proposed applicants who
have websites, who engage in community activities to gain support, who
tweet, who blog, and who have been in the press have contributed
tremendously to ICANN’s outreach process and public awareness of this new
gTLD opportunity.  However, DotGreen agrees that additional communications
should be continue ICANN structures and various stakeholders for countries
and communities not yet reached.



*EOI addresses challenges to ICANN completing the Draft Applicant Guidebook
(DAG)*

Creating policy and the DAG details to serve multiple communities in a
responsible and secure manner is difficult, particularly when ICANN doesn’t
know what may possibly be proposed in a round of new gTLDs. DotGreen
believes an EOI can work and makes sense *if it provides ICANN with the
specifics of strings, and numbers of serious applicants without adding
unnessary risk to the applicants.*



*ICANN seeking specifics of strings and numbers of serious applicants*

One purpose for the EOI is to indicate the number of serious new gTLD
applications.  Can a monetary amount be calculated to represent the
investment of innovation, time, effort, materials, outreach and
participation already invested by current possible applicants?  DotGreen
believes a monetary amount seems useful for an EOI but we are concerned that
by itself, it may be inadequate to measure the number of serious applicants
intending to contract with ICANN for delegation of a string.  Writing a
check is not easy for some while writing even multiple checks is easy for
others.  We believe this system alone could continue to skew the numbers,
distract the process and may likely end in many refunds.  DotGreen
suggests an *EOI of $55,000 accompanied with additional criteria acting as
proof of serious intent rather than simply or only writing a check.  *



*Refunds at time of Final Application Guidebook completion should fall under
two scenarios.  *

*1. ** *If there are *multiple applicants* for the same string, an applicant
should be able to drop out any time before or once the Final Applicant
Guidebook and evaluation criteria and dispute resolution, etc. is published
– and receive a *maximum refund.*  If a merge is possible, ICANN should keep
payment from only one to process the now merged applicant for the string;
however, if both applicants opt to stay in separately and compete, they
choose to forfeit their right to that refund.

*2.*  If there is not an identical string submitted, applicant can still
drop out at any time before or at publication of the Final Applicant
Guidebook and receive a *maximum refund.*  (This minimizes penalty for an
applicant who submitted to being a “guinea pig” participant in a process
with unknown criteria and requirements which could later prove applicant's
business model to no longer be viable.)  These applicants may even choose to
come back in round 2 with a new business plan or better prepared – perhaps
opting for a full credit instead of maximum refund.



*Good Faith Applicants Only Please*

In the case or situation of multiple applicants for the same string,
applicants should be asked to submit more *“proof of serious interest”
(which is not monetary) *at specific milestones with ICANN.  Not as a
comparative evaluation but to insure continued seriousness, good faith and
willingness to enter into ICANN’s process and delegation contract.  Missing
a deadline to submit good faith measures could prevent applicant from
receiving any refund at the time of Final Application Guidebook completion.
This creates a situation where *applicants who remain are there to work
through the process with ICANN, ready to participate and are serious about
managing a gTLD and are not there for any other reason.*  This is especially
important if there are more than one applicant for the same string and if
full or maximum refunds will be available to those who are not prepared and
not ready to contract with ICANN for delegation.



*Interest and awareness of new gTLD program*

There seems to be plenty of public interest to run a first round of new gTLD
applications as evidenced by the number of those who have been public about
their initiatives.  There should be a second round with improvements added
to the process, and that should be encouraging to those who are not ready
yet or even to those who choose to wait to avoid the risk of entering an EOI
in a process not yet completed.  DotGreen would like ICANN to move forward
with its first round and ICANN should include its commitment to holding a
second round in the future.   This puts an end to the *“endless numbers of
TLDs that will be released on the Internet without enough study”* *concern.*
ICANN will have a published, known, and manageable number of possible new
gTLDs in the first round.  Perhaps not all of them will qualify for
delegation. The first or “guinea pig” round could be much more constructive
than a study.

Meanwhile ICANN can continue with its promotion and outreach for the second
round immediately after closing the application window and publishing the
applied for strings of the first round.  This second round promotion can
continue while running the first round.  News and press releases of the
progress of the first round will function as the ideal promotion of the new
gTLD opportunity and outreach commitment of ICANN’s second round -
especially if there is a published date or year for the second round.  The
fate of proposed gTLD initiatives and their launches, marketing, success,
etc. would serve as valuable information for those interested in the second
round.

*Public Comment Forums*

Applicants who are unable to lodge public comments due to privacy issues
with their business plans create additional challenges to receiving balanced
feedback from the community.  ICANN staff and board should consider while
reading the public comments that new TLD applicants who feel it is crucial
to their business success to remain in stealth mode and are supportive of
the new gTLD process moving forward, and businesses who intend to apply for
new gTLDs but opt to not publicly support the new gTLD process moving
forward, may not feel able to post comment on the EOI in the open public
forum.  Furthermore, even if the applicant is not in stealth mode, parts of
their business plan may be.  Therefore. the quantity of some comments and
opinions which are logged on ICANN’s public forums may result in inaccurate
representation of what the community wants and needs with regard to various
topics concerning new gTLDs and EOIs.   By using only a public forum, a
percentage of views and comments may be excluded.  Suggestions:  A.
Consider all unique comments and refrain from allocating too much importance
to repetitive commentary.  B.  Run a “guinea pig” round for new gTLDs (see
below).



*A Guinea Pig Round – used for development of new gTLDs*

By starting the first round now, with a closing of the window to entry, the
first applicant group (guinea pigs – perhaps they may be called another name
such as tgTLDs for Trial or Test gTLDs, or pgTLDs for pioneer gTLDs) would
now exist as a stakeholder group in the new gTLD process working with
ICANN.  We know there to be many types of suggested new TLDs such as
geographic and city, brand, cultural, hobby, lifestyle, philanthropic,
environmental, contentious, non-contentious, etc, and just as many types of
business models.  Once the EOI window is closed, *these “pioneer gTLD”
applicants can form groups and enter into discussions in an open and
transparent manner along with ICANN’s other stakeholder groups and staff in
formulating the details of the DAG in a completely relevant and global
stakeholder manner.  This framework would be very helpful to ICANN, the
Internet community at large and second round applicants in regards to
expectations.*



*No surprises for ICANN, no surprises for Internet community!  *

EOIs could include more information than just string name and contact name
once the window is closed.  Perhaps sensitive data would be collected and
published anonymously for public analysis and discussion.



*Trademark owners – unhappy with new TLDs*

It is all a matter of perspective.  Once trademark holders and other groups
who are against newTLDs realize newTLDs are really coming, these groups may
be more inclined to participate in creating helpful policy, address some of
the over-arching issues, and submit their own newTLDs for the first or
second round.  In addition, some of the proposed new gTLDs may prove
beneficial to trademark owners.



*Second Round Advantage *

Interestingly, with much of the work done, the second round  may not take as
long as this first or pioneer round has.  This could be seen as an advantage
to second round applicants who, start now.  They will have plenty of time to
organize and know when to become active for an application round.  There
will be additional information available to them for analysis and there will
be processes to participate in as changes are made during the experience of
running the first round.  Perhaps more choices for technical support may
become available once the first round has been launched as well as a better
understanding of what may work in the real world market.



*A firm and fixed time frame*

A firm date to begin is necessary and fair considering ICANN published
previous (and now expired) expectations to its community.  ICANN has
gathered sufficient response to warrant a first round, especially a
constructive “guinea pig” or “pioneer” round.



*DotGreen Supports  moving forward*

With a *published opening and closing date for the EOI period *for new
gTLDs, DotGreen believes the EOI concept could move the new gTLD process
forward by allowing for more transparent and relevant discussion for
completing the DAG.



DotGreen would like to extend our appreciation to The ICANN Board of
Directors, The ICANN Staff and the many ICANN professional volunteers and
Internet stakeholders who dedicate so much time and effort to the success of
a global effort and process which aims to hear all voices and serve all
Internet users.



With my best regards,



Annalisa Roger, Founder/CEO

The DotGreen Registry

A Non-profit For Public Benefit Corporation

300 Drakes Landing, Suite 220

Greenbrae, CA   94904