[bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration

[Liz Williams]

Ron

I agree with your views.  We cannot continue to pretend that new TLDs  
will not happen nor that it is acceptable to delay any further by the  
introduction of other so-called threshold issues.

The majority of trademark protection issues such as sunrise, landrush  
and malicious conduct are only post delegation issues which do not  
impinge at all on the establishment of an orderly application process.

It would, however, be helpful to focus on some issues which are  
outstanding, most notably the base registry contract as part of the  
DAG which will bind all registry operators.

Liz
On 18 Jan 2010, at 18:48, Ron Andruff wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> We support Ayesha's call for more dialogue within the BC on this  
> matter.
> There appear to be a number of diverging perspectives that need deeper
> discussion -- preferably in a face-to-face meeting, but could also  
> be on
> list.
>
> For the record, our views on EOIs are in opposition to Philip's.  I  
> am also
> hereby declaring our interest in applying for .SPORT.
>
> We don't agree that the EIO:
>
> (1) is a 'distraction', rather a good addition to the process for  
> ICANN
> staff to gain much needed information
> (2) is an 'unreversable pre-registration', as the ability to get a  
> refund is
> incorporated in the current DAG
> (3) is an issue of 'inconsistency' -- every round of new TLDs has  
> been an
> exercise in developing a new set of rules to provide for that  
> particular
> rollout; this round is no different in that regard
> (4) will 'cause brands to register' to hold off speculators as,  
> again, there
> are provisions in the DAG to that allows brand owners to oppose; the  
> second
> concept of 'tip-off' is a non-issue.  If one thinks that their  
> "special
> string" can be kept secret to avoid competition, they are dreaming.
> Irrespective of whether one submits their EOI in the opening round  
> or not,
> ICANN processes are long and transparent and no one will be able to  
> shepherd
> their application in a way that 'protects' them from scrutiny of  
> others
> (5) would 'enable speculators' to take an interest in a TLD and then  
> flip it
> to another entity between the EOI and the next step in the process;  
> even if
> such a concept were to happen (as unlikely a scenario as it is) it  
> would be
> noted and addressed in the "2nd round" to ensure it would never happen
> again;
> (6) 'forces applicants to invest blind' because no one is forcing  
> anyone to
> do anything; those that are prepared to step forward and declare their
> interest with the understanding the that the overarching issues will  
> be
> resolved, take that initiative willingly.
>
> In summary, we don't think that the arguments Philip posted hold  
> water and
> therefore submit that they should not be adopted as a BC position.   
> However,
> as always, we encourage individual member postings on this topic in  
> the
> public forum.  For those who may be interested, my comments to the  
> first
> call for comments on this topic are noted here:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/msg00004.html
>
> Sincerely,
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
> New York, New York 10001
>
> www.rnapartners.com
> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
> F:  +1 212 481 2859
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
> Behalf Of
> HASSAN Ayesha
> Sent: 2010-01-18 05:06
> To: Philip Sheppard; bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration
>
>
> Dear Philip,
>
> It may be also be helpful to consider the following:
>
> *This is an important proposal for the community to consider, and it
> should be discussed more fully at the ICANN Nairobi meeting (not  
> decided
> in February if that is the plan)
> *Difficult for business to assess the EoI given that the final
> application process for new gTLDs is still being developed; both will
> impact broader business.
> *Running two important comment periods simultaneously (Affirmation
> reviews and EoI) and over the holidays and new year period, makes it
> difficult for some organizations to effectively run their own internal
> consensus building processes to provide substantive comments on both
> topics.
>
> Best regards,
> Ayesha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
> Behalf
> Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: lundi 18 janvier 2010 10:56
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: [bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration
>
>
> This is out for consultation.
> The public comment period opens on 18 December 2009 and closes on 27
> January
> 2010. Details at:
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#draft-eoi
> <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#draft-eoi>
>
>
> My draft initial comments are as follows.
> Comments ?
> If there is consensus / support I'd be happy to write something up  
> as a
> BC
> position.
> Philip
>
> --------------------
> We oppose the concept of pre-registration and expressions of interest
> (EOI) for
> the following reasons.
>
> 1. Distraction
> The EOI process should not distract ICANN from the fundamental task of
> addressing unresolved issues relating to new TLDs such as trade mark
> protection
> and malicious conduct.
>
> 2. A true pre-registration
> The proposed mandatory EOI process with a $55,000 fee is described  
> as a
> pre-registration suggesting that it is not reversible regardless of  
> the
> unresolved overarching issues such as trade mark protection and
> malicious
> conduct.
>
> 3. Inconsistency
> The principle of pre-registration is inconsistent with all previous
> ICANN
> practice.
>
> 4. Ignores market dynamics
> Brand owners may feel compelled to enter into an EOI purely for
> defensive
> reasons, so that they do not suffer when a speculator is given  
> rights in
> their
> brand.  There seems to be no facility to allow competition for the  
> same
> domain
> names after pre-registration. Moreover, pre-registration may tip-off
> competitors
> to new business models prematurely.
>
> 5. A lower than market fee may encourage speculation
> Speculators may pay $55,000 to secure rights to certain domains  
> instead
> of
> $185,000 in the hope of selling on. This is surely not the intent of
> ICANN's
> Board.
>
> 6. Applicants are forced to invest blind
> Because there are unresolved issues, the pre-registration model forces
> applications in ignorance of potential future costs. This is poor
> business
> practice.
>
>
> Philip Sheppard
>
>