Thanks Brett, This pretty well summarizes what I heard, too. I tend to disagree with your conclusions on whether this is a good idea or not. I see several advantages for ICANN, the major one being the ability to clearly quantify the needed resources to process the applications. I also see advantages for applicants. Being able to find common ground for a common applications with other candidates for the same string ahead of the formal application process means less tensions, disputes, conflicts and auctions. In the end, I think this is beneficial for everyone, including registrants. I also understand that it will make it easier for applicants to raise funding. Right now, they are selling hot air, and no-one buys that in this economic downturn environment. My main concern is the deposit required. The cost of this expression of interest process would be marginal for ICANN, because there is no evaluation at that stage. Hence, there is no need to ask for a lot of money. Further, we do not want smaller community-based TLDs might to be eliminated at that stage. We need to have a deposit that will prevent frivolous submissions, but that is all. If it is small enough, it could be non-refundable. Agree that no-one expects ICANN to be able to run an anonymous process. They could even keep the name of their CEO secret for more than 3 days. I support your suggestion to identify community-based applications, but note also that the EOI process will run while the DAG is not yet final. Hence, defining what a community-based application is would be difficult. I think Jothan was the one pointing this out. On a side note, I have enquired about the process of adding more people to the group. There was a similar request originating from another SO/AC. Patrick On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:02:27 -0500 (EST), "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
I was on the call this morning. Not a lot to report.
I believe the proposal on the table is along the following lines:
1. ICANN will set a date on which to collect "Expressions of Interest." Or you might call it "New TLD Applications, Stage 1."
2. These filings will contain the name of the entity filing for the TLD, the string sought by the application, and a check for an amount to be agreed. The discussion ranged from $50K on the low end to the full application fee of $185K on the high end. No common view on what the sum should be, though everyone identified pros and cons for each end of the spectrum.
3. The rule would be that only entities filing these "Expressions of Interest" would be allowed to apply in this gTLD round. No one had confidence in an anonymous process. If it were just optional, no one thought anyone would do it except those who had already announced.
4. Disagreement on whether there should be a check box on the "Expression of Interest" form to indicate whether the applicant was planning to apply under the "Community" evaluation criteria. I thought this was a good idea. Others disagreed.
That's about it. No discussion of what ICANN will do with these things once it gets them.
Frankly, I have a very hard time evaluating whether this is a good idea or not without understanding how the filings will be used by ICANN and the community. Part of me thinks we should finish the process we started. Part of me thinks the proposal above might help move things along by at least identifying the players and strings.
It's probably the sort of thing where we need more guidance from the Board and Staff on what they see as the process forward.
Bret
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu