ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[alac] Comments on the draft request for new TLDs

  • To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [alac] Comments on the draft request for new TLDs
  • From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:43:52 +0200

I have just read the draft request for proposals for new TLDs:

What can I say... being a well mannered person, I will not use the terms
that came to my mind while reading it, but there are a few of the points I'd
like to make:

- Restricting new TLD proposals to sponsored TLDs goes against common sense
and the prevailing consensus in the community; furthermore, it goes against
market competition and innovation.

- Restricting new TLD proposals to year 2000 applicants is an unfair way to
stifle competition. Three years on the Internet are a huge amount of time,
and I am sure that there are new ideas and new people out there who would
like to apply for new TLDs even if they didn't in 2000. Moreover, it is
likely that most of the year 2000 applicants, due to the changes in the
economical conditions, will not be interested in resubmitting an
application, thus making it very easy for the reapplicants to win the domain
using this sort of "preferential lane".

- Furthermore, the list of year 2000 applicants is almost entirely composed
by US companies. In practice, ICANN is preventing non-US entities from
getting new TLDs.

- For ICANN, being unable to start a regular service of examination and
approval of new TLD proposals, after 5 years from its start, is a proof of a
huge failure. By this, ICANN is effectively hampering innovation and
evolution over the Internet. Approving a few new sponsored TLDs chosen from
a list of ICANN-selected applicants is only a fig leaf that does not hide
ICANN's complete failure in establishing a quick, effective and
uncontroversial process for the creation of any kind and number of new TLDs
- and its lack of will of doing so!

- Asking for 25'000$ to re-examine slightly reviewed versions of
applications for which the applicants already paid 50'000$ is unreasonable.

- Our proposal about lower fees for non-profit applicants, as well as the
proposal of 2-step fees (one for applying, one for winning), have been
completely ignored. This fee policy effectively prevents any kind of
non-commercial or bottom-up new TLD from being created, and makes the losers
pay the negotiation and implementation costs of the winners.

- Apparently, ICANN is completely ignoring the ALAC statements on the
matter, and doing the exact opposite. It is true that we are not the GAC and
do not have a right to explanations recognized by the Bylaws... and yet I
would like to understand whether it makes any sense for us to spend all this
time in advising the organization about the needs of the general public, if
ICANN chooses to do the exact opposite of what we advise. I do not think
that we own the ultimate truth or that all we say must be accepted by the
Board, but at least I would like to get an explanation from Board members on
the rationale underlying their choice.

I would like to get other opinions on this document. Perhaps you do not
share my views, but I think that we absolutely have to submit comments and
to ask explanations about why we are being ignored.
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
--------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy