Re: [alac] Comments on the draft request for new TLDs

[Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I *like* sponsored TLDs, but I think they need to earn their 
place in a competitive market, competing against unsponsored ones. Let the 
users choose - users being both registrants, and people who visit the sites...

But restricting the new TLDs in such a way does indeed smack of unfairness. 
But Wendy's probably right: Let's be practical and press for a quick move 
forward.  It's not clear what ICANN may think it is learning, because it 
hasn't done its own promised Evaluation Process.

FWIW, I don't expect us to be the only voices ICANN listens to, but I think 
we (will) have company on many of these comments below.

Esther


At 12:06 PM 6/28/2003, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> At 11:43 AM 06/26/2003 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > I have just read the draft request for proposals for new TLDs:
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm
> >
> > 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:
>
> Thanks Vittorio.  I agree with lots of these, and agree we should submit 
> comments.
> The cynic in me says that the RFP's restrictions have a lot to do with 
> lobbying from a few snubbed 2000 applicants.
>
> > - 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.
>
> In general, I agree.  However, the Lynn proposal in Rio and before was to 
> add a "limited number" of sponsored TLDs to the "testbed" period, before 
> opening for general expansion at some later time.  These are theoretically 
> just additions to the testbed.  I think that rather than challenging the 
> limitation to sponsored in this case, we should urge ICANN to move quickly 
> beyond "testing" to addition of a full range of new gTLDs.
>
> > - 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.
>
> Several characteristics of the new TLD program in 2000 make it 
> inappropriate to limit current consideration to a limited subset of the 
> applications for the "proof-of-concept" then:
>
> -Although new TLD applicants were asked to classify their proposals as 
> "sponsored" or "unsponsored," and to submit additional materials if 
> choosing "sponsored,"  the distinction did not carry nearly so much weight 
> then as it is now being made to bear.  Sponsorship was merely one of 
> several characteristics among which applicants could choose.  Clearly 
> applicants could not have known that they were foreclosing themselves from 
> later consideration by choosing "unsponsored" in 2000.
>
> -Nothing in the criteria announced in August 2000, prior to submission of 
> applications, indicated that sponsored TLDs would be given any special 
> priority, such that applicants would be encouraged to choose sponsored 
> over unsponsored where either type of operation would fit their needs.  " 
> The evaluation of delegation of policy-formulation functions for 
> special-purpose TLDs to appropriate organizations" was only the seventh of 
> nine criteria for 
> evaluation.  <http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm>
>
> -Further, ICANN's evaluation of the 2000 new TLD proposals did not 
> distinguish between sponsored and unsponsored as a major category in its 
> report, instead looking at general/specific purpose, 
> restricted/unrestricted use, and new services.  The report suggests that 
> even after reviewing all applications submitted in 2000, the evaluators 
> did not believe the distinction was significant. 
> <http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/>
>
> Finally, nothing in the lead-up to the 2003 process has ever indicated 
> that preference would be given to past applicants for sponsored 
> TLDs.  This decision frustrates those who expected to be able to apply for 
> future TLDs even if they had not previously applied or planned to change 
> the nature of a previous application based on interim experience.  ICANN 
> is presumably continuing the "proof-of-concept" because it believes it is 
> learning something from the testbed process, yet limiting applications to 
> a narrow selection of those unsuccessful three years ago deprives the 
> Internet community of a meaningful chance to make use of  the experience 
> of those years.   Moreover, at the slow pace of ICANN's new TLD roll-out, 
> missing the opportunity to apply in the continuing "proof-of-concept" 
> phase imposes a significant hardship on would-be sponsors.  If ICANN is 
> committed to making the testbed a representative evaluation of new TLD 
> policies, it must open the application process to all who fit its 
> substantive criteria.
>
> > - 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... <--------
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/



Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

see my new blog (finally!) at
http://release4.blogspot.com/

Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters