Comment

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the following ICANN staff recommendations as provided for in
the New gTLD Board meeting minutes:

 

2. Staff does not believe it is appropriate at this time to create a new
category of

generic-term applications with new provisions - the Applicant Guidebook did

not indicate expected restrictions from ICANN on an applicant's use of a
TLD,

and there is no existing policy advice that can be used to define this.
There are

objection mechanisms in place to support consideration of issues for

applications that a party considers problematic, and these processes should

continue to be used where relevant.

 

3. If action is desired to create category rules among the current gTLD

applications, the appropriate basis for establishing such rules would be
policy

guidance from the GNSO. Seeking policy guidance is not recommended at this

time, as this will introduce delay to the evaluations in process as well as
raising

liability on the introduction of additional criteria to the process.

 

Also, I believe conclusions from "An Economic Framework for the Analysis of
the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names" prepared for ICANN in June
2010
(http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/economic-analysis-of-new-gtlds
-16jun10-en.pdf) are relevant to this discussion, including as it pertains
to how ICANN Board members contemplate the matter of "public interest".
Such as the excerpts quoted below from this report:

 

"Innovation and new services are among the most important contributors to
economic growth and well-being. The

chance that a new gTLD and/or its sponsor could provide an innovative,
heretofore unimagined

business model is an important reason to consider expanding gTLDs. Such a
new business

model could put direct competitive pressure on established gTLDs or could
expand the market in

new directions."

 

And:

 

"In fact, far greater user benefits could be generated by a new offering
that meets needs totally unsatisfied

by existing gTLD than would be generated by a new gTLD that largely
duplicated existing

gTLDs but created competitive pressure by acting as a substitute for
existing gTLDs."

 

And:

 

"In the case of new gTLDs, the potential for market power is a reason to

block entry only if net social benefits from a new gTLD would be negative.
This could be the

case if, as noted by the DOJ, there were strong negative external effects
due to, for example, the

need for many defensive registrations of additional domain names at a
monopoly price. Absent

this type of significant external cost imposed on others, the decision of
whether to introduce new

gTLDs does not hinge on whether the entrants would have market power.
Rather, the decision

should be made on the basis of whether the net social benefits from their
introduction are

positive or not."

 

I believe it is reasonable to conclude that members of the community,
including some of today's new gTLD applicants, had reason to rely on this
economic report as rationale considered by the ICANN Board for its
subsequent approval for new gTLD expansion.

 

I submit this comment in my personal capacity for your consideration.

 

Ray Fassett