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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: 2010-01-18 05:06 To: Philip Sheppard; bc-gnso@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: lundi 18 janvier 2010 10:56 To: bc-gnso@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