I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version. While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email):
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the 2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in words meaningful in their own communities.
* ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community.
We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend our time doing it.
* That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.
This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything. If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft. We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely. Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo. -- Bret