[Newgtld-input] input on gTLD batching from Russia

[Andrei Kolesnikov]

1. As ICANN received 1,930 applications for new gTLDs, while the annual
number of to be delegated ones is set at a level of 1,000, all the
applications should be classified into two batches with the gap between
their term of delegation being 1 year. According to preliminary estimates,
the applied-for gTLDs from the first batch might be delegated in late 2013,
and, subsequently, the second batch might be delegated within 2014.

 

2. Yes, we believe it is possible to grant the applicants with extra time
between the publication of application evaluation results and the launch of
the Transition to Delegation stage. That would enable them to complete
complementary organizational activities to get their websites, SRSs, set of
policies, etc. for the start of fully functional operations in the capacity
of Registry Operator of the applied-for new gTLD, if needed.

 

3. We propose a simultaneous publication of all the application evaluation
results (at the end of Initial Evaluation). This is the most critical matter
for the applicants. The applications should be broken into two groups:

(a) the ones included in the Contention sets and (b) non-competing
applications.

 

4. As concerns non-competing applications, we believe it is imperative to
consider in the first batch the following ones:

(a) community-based applications, as they exhibit an emerged need of a
strictly identified community in such a gTLD;

(b) geoTLDs, as they display an official support and keenness to have such a
domain by the respective Government and the geographic community;

(c) gTLDs whose mission statements explicitly hold they are socially
significant open projects. While such domains may fall short of representing
a clearly identified community, they appear critical for boosting the
diversity of ways the Internet is used by various social groups (e.g. .ДЕТИ
etc.)

That said, we think that where gTLDs matching the above criteria prove to be
IDNs, this should be considered an extra plus, for IDNs are particularly
important to developing nations and countries where English is not widely
spoken. That is to say, where there have been submitted applications with
equal potential, in the course of their processing priority should be given
to IDNs.

 

5. It is applications for "close-end" gTLDs that are set to service
corporate needs or brands which should be granted the lowest priority and be
delegated in the second batch. Such gTLDs include those wherein registration
of the 2nd - and 3rd-level domains is narrowed to a very selected array of
users and/or where the Registry Operator (which concurrently exercises the
Registrar's functions) is going to register domains solely for its own
needs. As well, the second batch should also include all competing
applications (Contention sets) and those opted-out by applicants ready to
postpone their delegation for a year.

 

6. We believe the contract execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation
phases should not be used to classify the applications into batches. Rather,
these phases should be implemented per the description in AGB, RA and IANA
procedure.

Since the moment of signing Registry Agreement, the new gTLD Registry
Operator should be fully ready, both organizationally and technically, to
exercise its functions and interact with its customers. So, it seems
inappropriate to split these phases in a special way.

 

Regards,

 

Andrei Kolesnikov

 

Director,

Coordination Center for TLD RU