Multiple-Application-Windows-per-Round Proposal

["Werner Staub (CORE)" <werner.staub@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a proposal for ICANN to include multiple application
windows in each TLD round.  The purpose of to avoid the "Big
Bang" effect implicit in currently proposed process.

Rather than being all forced to go through the same
application window, applicants should be able to choose
between 3 application windows within each round. As a result,
there would be *two early application windows*, followed each
by its own evaluation/objection period, and *one final
application window for the round*, followed by its
evaluation/objection period.

Early applicants would have to accept an additional
contractual covenant: If an objection is filed against an
early application, it slips to the subsequent window. This
means that additional contenders for the same string or for a
confusingly similar may come in at that point. However, after
the last window in the round no additional contenders can
come in.

Extended evaluation, dispute resolution and contention
resolution are organised as early as possible for each case.

The application windows would logically be of 1 month
duration. The space between application windows can be 3
months. The last of the three application windows is the end
of the round. As it is likely to have a heavier load, the
last window is followed by a 9-month quiet period before the
start of the subsequent round.


Rationale:

A Big Bang brings both ICANN and applicants into a severe
resource bottleneck. Potential applicants will (rightfully)
expect a troubled big bang. A troubled round means that the
follow-on round will be delayed, most probably by many years.
So any potential applicant has no other choice but to jump on
the coming round, prepared or not. This is the panic effect
caused by announcing a Big Bang.

Moreover, a Big Bang means that applicants have to risk
everything for a single string. As everything happens at the
same time. There is no option to withdraw an application and
select a different string in the next window - simply because
it is virtually certain that the next opportunity is 3 to 5
years away.

Finally, a Big Bang drives everyone to litigation against
everyone. Not only do applicants not have any way out other
than the hope of winning in litigation - an entire population
the consultants, evaluators, panelists is deprived of any
more reasonable thing to do than litigation - simply because
there is no next application window in sight.

By fitting three application windows into each round, ICANN
enables applicants to choose the best time. For some
applicants, there is a good reason to wait for the final
window in the round. For others, it is better to submit as
early as possible or a soon as their work is complete. This
means that the applications will spread naturally: nobody is
forced to run at the same time as all the others. This
improves the general visibility for both ICANN staff and the
public at large. It avoids the potentially catastrophic
resource bottlenecks for the new gTLD process.

Non-controversial, non-contentious TLDs are likely to select
the early application windows. This enables ICANN to learn
and gradually step up the resources devoted to the process.
And ICANN gets more experience early on in the process,
without the full load. Evaluators and panels can spread their
work over time.

An applicant can safely skip the first or second window. Not
only can community applicants and rights holders object if
somebody tried to "grab" their string, they can then submit a
contending application in the second window or in the final
window of the round. This means that applicants will not be
pushed to apply before having done their home work.

For a  given applicant, the various possible outcomes
resulting from the multiple application windows are always
better or equal than the outcome with a Big Bang. The
possible outcomes are always consistent with the terms
accepted by the applicants.

I am submitting a separate proposal for graceful withdrawal
of an application. If both features are introduced (graceful
withdrawal and multiple application windows per round), early
applicants can avoid contention or objection by withdrawal at
very low practical cost. The most important thing is to be
able to come back in the next window with a different,
improved or adapted application. This is much better than a
situation where applicants have no other choice but to pursue
expensive litigation followed potentially by an equally
destructive auction process.

Avoiding the "big bang effect" is also a protection against
the danger of further delays of the upcoming round. This
means that multiple application windows should be available
in the upcoming round and not only be considered for a
subsequent round.

In other words, if ICANN announces a first window for July
2009, a second window for November 2009 and a final window
for the round in March 2010, it has a stable and feasible
timeline.

If instead ICANN tries to build upon the big-bang concept, it
is likely to postpone the upcoming round again and again.
Additional delays will appear unavoidable because resources
are insufficient. The "big bang" approach bears the highest
risk for the next round to take place no earlier than
mid-2010.The subsequent round would then most probably be
delayed until 2015.

Werner Staub

--
---
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx