Uniregistry Comment on Prioritizing New gTLD Applications

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "Use of a Drawing for 
Prioritizing New gTLD Applications." This comment is submitted on behalf of 
Uniregistry Corp., an applicant for 54 top-level domains in both English and 
Spanish languages.

First and foremost, Uniregistry is pleased to support the concept of a 
Prioritization Draw. As we wrote in an earlier public comment, we believe that 
random selection is the fairest method of ordering applications. We are pleased 
that ICANN was able to find a way to implement this.

Second, on the issue of prioritizing IDN applications, we note that nothing in 
the Applicant Guidebook suggests that any particular kind of top-level domain 
is more or less in the public interest. We believe that every applicant 
passionate about its top-level domain application can make a compelling case as 
to why the public interest is furthered in some way by the increased choice, 
competition, price, language, geography, or service to a previously 
under-served community or market segment that comes with its new top-level 
domain. The new gTLD program as a whole was designed to advance ICANN's 
mission, and we disagree with ICANN's assumption that prioritization of an IDN 
like "游戏" (Chinese for "Games") is inherently more in the public interest than, 
for example, Uniregistry's application for .JUEGOS (Spanish for "Games"). Under 
the proposed rule, non-English non-IDN TLDs are effectively penalized for 
sharing the same character set as the English language.

We also note that one of the primary policies driving the gTLD program is the 
need to bring consumers expanded choice and to create broad and vigorous 
registry-to-registry competition in the marketplace. Viewed in that light, we 
believe it is a counterintuitive policy choice for ICANN to give 
first-to-market advantage to the company with 75% market share of the existing 
gTLD registration market and which applied, for its non-Branded TLDs, 
exclusively for IDN transliterations of .COM. We believe ICANN should balance 
any benefit of prioritizing IDN applications with the side-effect injury to 
competition that comes from pushing the dominant incumbent registry to market 
ahead of new market entrants.

Nevertheless, in the interests of expediting the new TLD process and not 
opening yet another comment period on a revised policy, Uniregistry can support 
the existing prioritization plan for IDNs so long as (i) the scope of the 
prioritization is not expanded beyond IDNs and (ii) any delays specific to the 
implementation of IDN TLDs do not cause non-IDN TLDs to wait behind them.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and we are looking forward to 
attending the prioritization draw next month.

Very truly yours,

Bret A. Fausett
Counsel to Uniregistry, Corp.

--
Bret Fausett, Esq.
Internet Pro APC
4640 Admiralty Way, 5th Floor
Marina del Rey, California 90292
(310) 496-5755 | www.internet.pro
------------------------------------------------