Users and the New gTLDs

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

With regard to new gTLDs document, at the ICANN Cairo session the Chair of the 
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) put foward this comment:

"We have divvied it up totally to yet another ad-hoc Working Group.  So 
everyone has a section and we are at a point of not doing a line-by-line 
analysis as a whole but in a subset analysis.  But our Advisory Committee meets 
monthly as do each of the regional at-large organizations meet monthly.  It's 
now main point on their agenda.  So by December, we should be having meaningful 
responses that have actually gone out to community consultation and coming back 
in."

How nice if this were actually true.  

1.  If these representatives of the user community have actually formed an 
ad-hoc working group, then where are their discussions being held?  The rest of 
us "users" would sure like to know.  These user reps haven't communicated on 
the ALAC's gTLD-WG list (which hasn't seen a single comment since 8 September), 
and they certainly haven't advised anyone of the formation of a new list that 
would allow for a subset or a line-by-line analysis by community members.

2.  Neither has there been any discussion on the lists of the Regional at-large 
organizations on this topic thus far -- that's a very far cry from being "the 
main point on their agenda".

3.  So we are now into December and no subset analysis has been put out for 
community consultation -- of course, there is no consequent grassroots feedback 
coming back in.

OK... so what will likely happen next?  

Here's the probable scenario:  ICANN Staff will prevail upon a few members of 
ALAC to come up with some kind of Statement.  One person will wind up doing all 
the work while the other conscripts will contribute next to nothing to the 
discussion.  One person's Statement will be posted just prior to the 
commencement of the next ALAC meeting, and the Committee members (most of whom 
will likely not have even read the Statement) will exclaim "Great Work!" and 
vote to ratify the language therein.

This is not what any of us expected the ALAC/RALO/ALS process to be.  It was 
not meant to be a "think tank" in which just a few select individuals speak out 
through "Statements" on behalf of the worldwide user community; instead the 
ALAC was meant to be a coordination point that facilitated an upward flow of 
input from grassroots communities on issues within ICANN's remit that were of 
concern to individual Internet users.

So, because the ALAC, again, is not doing its job and is not making any real 
effort to involve the user community, I am asking for those in the 
at-large world (the public) to take a moment to really think hard about ICANN's 
new gTLD processes and the potential impact of those processes.

Here are some of my own preliminary thoughts:

A.  On the topic of pricing and non-discriminatory treatment -- When the U.S. 
General Accounting Office (GAO) considered the question as to whether the 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25 (which relates to cost recovery 
through user charges by federal government agencies), was applicable to a 
nongovernmental entity such as ICANN, it determined that whereas ICANN is a 
project partner under the Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN is not subject to 
the Circular but necessarily is subject to the Department’s policy to allow 
project partners only to recover actual project costs -- see 
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/og00033r.pdf

Accordingly we have seen ICANN putting forward as a justification for their 
high new gTLD evaluation fees the notion of a "cost-recovery principle" which 
while in keeping with the above-mentioned DOC policy still raises the following 
set of questions:

1.  For the last ten years ICANN has chosen not to utilize the principle of 
cost-recovery as it pertained to the IANA costs incurred on behalf of the ccTLD 
community (although it had the option under contract to charge fees for such 
service):

"After the effective date of this purchase order, ICANN may establish and 
collect fees from third parties (i.e. other than the United States Government) 
for the functions performed under this purchase order, provided the fee levels 
are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which 
approval shall not be withheld unreasonably provided the fee levels are fair 
and equitable and provided the aggregate fees charged during the term of this 
purchase order do not exceed the cost of providing the functions."  
http://www.icann.org/en/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm

Is it discriminatory to invoke this cost-recovery principle against one set of 
TLD operators (the gTLDs) while not invoking it when dealing with a different 
set of TLD operators (the ccTLDs)?  I, for one, see it as grossly inequitable.

2.  If the cost-recovery principle is to be used for gTLDs, can we expect it 
similarly to be used to deal with IDN ccTLDs?  Is ICANN planning to charge the 
ccTLD world for ten years worth of IDN development costs and other ancillary 
policy development costs as it now seeks to charge the new gTLD operators?  If 
so, we will be taking a giant step backwards by creating an unnecessary barrier 
to entry for many in the developing world -- and this will seriously hurt that 
user community.

This viewpoint is consistent with the recent position taken by the Governmental 
Advisory Committee (GAC) in their Cairo Communique that stated:  "the charging 
of fees for the IDN ccTLD fast track process should be examined further to 
ensure that it does not constitute an additional difficulty for participation 
in this process."

Policies need to be applied on a uniform basis.  If we have chosen not to abide 
by a project cost-recovery principle thus far in ICANN's ten-year history, now 
is not the time to rock the boat without widespread community agreement to this 
radical shift in policy.

B.  On the topic of pricing and its consequent impact on users -- Are you aware 
that ICANN runs its own registry operation?  This registry (.INT) is managed by 
ICANN's IANA personnel and incurred no "evaluation costs" nor any other costs 
for that matter.  It offers a registration service to a certain very small 
class of registrants (IGOs).  This is a fine example of how the DNS is supposed 
to be managed -- small groups with defined needs are accommodated without the 
incumbrance of major costs.  

But what does ICANN have to say on the topic of fee reductions for the needy?

"No practical method of ICANN financial assistance or fee reductions was 
identified for the first round of new gTLD applications, though an appropriate 
mechanism might be defined for subsequent rounds. If staff is able to identify 
sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making 
opportunities for applicants from qualified developing nations, and indigenous 
and minority peoples in need, the results will be
made publicly available."

While ICANN Staff somehow couldn't identify a solution (and I'll bet they tried 
really hard), there is indeed an obvious solution for these needy applicants 
that ICANN has overlooked -- the IANA can establish and manage other comparable 
sets of registry operations (akin to .INT) so that groups other than IGOs may 
benefit from a low-to-no-cost option (the registry and the registrar are the 
same organizational entity).  

But this is a policy choice that ICANN has chosen not to pursue as it is so 
much easier for ICANN to focus on an unprecedented and unwarranted naked money 
grab.  As I see it, ICANN views it as much more important to squeeze as many 
dollars as it can from the commercial world while placing the needs of the 
non-commercial and the developing world on the back burner.  What we have here 
is an organization totally consumed by the notion of launching its .brand 
initiative to the detriment of all other parties just so that its revenues will 
eventually rise to the level of the ITU revenue stream.

And as we all know, the commercial world isn't too happy about this either... 
(just read the public comments already posted by firms such as Chevron and 
brands such as Lego).

A closing thought:  Users shouldn't have to stand in the wings awaiting an 
opportunity for affordable new gTLD registries when the mechanisms to afford 
them a namespace are in ICANN's own hands.  Let's have ICANN (through the IANA) 
put forward a proposal to manage the namespaces of the needy in much the same 
manner as it now manages the .int domain.  If the ITU can take the time to 
craft new recommendations for the management of .int registrations -- see 
http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG02-051206-TD-GEN-0106/e -- then certainly ICANN can 
put its nose to the grindstone in pursuit of the noble.  It's time for ICANN to 
do something positive for indigenous peoples, to protect endangered languages 
and the needs of the developing world, to give a damn about the users whose 
needs go far beyond a .brand namespace.

If you value the concept of namespace for the users, this is your chance to 
write in and let ICANN know how you feel.