ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

eco e.V. comments on DAG4

  • To: 4gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: eco e.V. comments on DAG4
  • From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:27:06 +0200

The below comments are made on behalf of eco, the Association of the German 
Internet Industry (www.eco.de). eco is the German ISP and Internet Industry 
Association with about 500 members from different Internet industry sectors. 
The association represents over 200 ISPs and Registrars forming the backbones 
of the German Internet.

eco appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 4th version of the Draft 
Applicant Guidebook.


Much progress has been achieved with this version of the DAG. However, 
prospective applicants suffer from the fact that no definitive and reliable 
timeline has been announced yet. Therefore, we urge ICANN to publish a date for 
the application window for the first round of applications soon.


Regarding contention sets, we propose that Article is amended so that 
the applicants are required to provide all information they can provide without 
the involvement of third parties within a reasonable deadline set by ICANN. The 
reason for this is that - according to the current wording - the string 
contention resolution procedures will not begin until all applicants in the 
contention set have completed all aspects of evaluation. The aforementioned 
deadline should help prevent applicants of speculative registrations from 
delaying the dispute resolution process.


Additionally, we are concerned about the newly introduced regulations in 
Article 1.2.1 of Module 1, in which ICANN accredited registrars are basically 
excluded from providing registry services.

eco members have made substantial investments to be able to provide such 
services. We assume that the exlusion of such actors is an unintended 
consequence of the strict interpretation of the Board's resulution as mentioned 
in footnote 1 on page 1-17. This restriction should be either reconsidered or 
entirely removed.

Anyhow, we encourage ICANN to consider exemptions from the restrictions on 
registrar cross-ownership as currently discussed in the Vertical Integration 
Working Group, such as SRSU scenarios, small community TLDs and orphan registry 
operators. Finally, the proposed 2% threshold for cross-ownership appears 
unduly low.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Head of the eco Names & Numbers Forum

eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. (www.eco.de), Germany

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy