[bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration -- a different approach: share views/encourage unique submissions
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 19 13:48:05 UTC 2010
I support the idea that while the BC members discuss their views on this topicon the list, that we do not try to develop a unified BC position. I can't see howit is possible to develop a position and take a 14 day vote, and I expect that thereare many different perspectives which would need to be shared, discussed, and then a drafting of a proposed position, with then a 14 day vote period.
Also, this is now a Board consultation, and it seems useful to have the uniquevoices of different business users, and associations, sharing their perspectivesin the public comment process.
> From: michael at palage.com
> To: philip.sheppard at aim.be; bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] TLD pre-registration
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:38:11 -0500
> I personally find myself more aligned with your viewpoints than I do with
> those expressed by Ron and Liz, however, I do not believe the BC charter
> permits a suitable timeframe to submit a constituency statement.
> I have been watching the EOI ballot box stuff exercise and believe it would
> be most prudent/effective for individual members to submit their comments to
> the forum.
> I have just completed an article in connection with the EOI that I will be
> publicly posting to the ICANN forum later today, and will forward it to the
> BC list as well.
> Best regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:56 AM
> 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:
> My draft initial comments are as follows.
> Comments ?
> If there is consensus / support I'd be happy to write something up as a BC
> We oppose the concept of pre-registration and expressions of interest (EOI)
> 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
> 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
> 3. Inconsistency
> The principle of pre-registration is inconsistent with all previous ICANN
> 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
> brand. There seems to be no facility to allow competition for the same
> names after pre-registration. Moreover, pre-registration may tip-off
> 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
> 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
> Philip Sheppard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso