I full support Rudis approach. We have to identify different TLD categories. We are challenged by a process which is not simply "new gTLDs". The problem is that we are talking about a broadening of the whole domain name space, that is we are talking about "new TLDs". So far we have two categories: gTLD and ccTLDs. There was a special category indroduced by ICANN in 2003(which was never really discussed conceptually) called sTLD (sponsored TLD). Nobody really understood what a sTLD would be. In the recent discussion process some people introduced the concept of GEO-TLD as a special category. I myself moderated various sessions with potential candidates for GEO-TLDs (from .africa to .nyc, from .cym to .brt, from .paris to .berlin) during the ICANN meeting in San Juan (2007), the IGF in Rio (2007) and ICANN Studienkreis meetings in Brussels (2005), Prague (2006) and Warsaw (2007). One of the ideas was to have a special RFC for GEO-TLDs, similar to RFC 1591. Other categories could be TLDs for corporations like .nokia, .marriott or .siemens or TLDs for NGOs and non-commercial institutions like .isoc or .apc or unversity etc. BTW does somebody know whether ICANN has commissioned meanwhile an economic study to look into market and competition implications of new TLDs? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Rudi Vansnick Gesendet: Mi 21.01.2009 08:55 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Commentaires à propos du cahier des charges pour les nouveaux TLD A small comment I would like to bring to the group after having consulted several organisations community based and with respect to the local government expecting some liberalization of the Internet domain name space. Small communities looked with great eyes to the offer to participate in the Internet world by means of new GTLD's. Several organisations spend a enormous budget in trying to understand the process and policy behind this action. But, the pressure of large business and commercial benefit is destroying their dreams ... unlucky again ? For that reason we ask and require the split of the proposal into 2 parts : the geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, not-for-profit and by government guaranteed GTLD's should have the opportunity to enter their proposals as soon as possible with a low entry fee. The second part/phase would be for commercial organisations, having an initial goal of benefit. And as such considered being more generic than geographic oriented. That's what I would go for and I hope, together with those I'm representing here (ISOC Belgium members and local government) ICANN will respect the rights of each human getting together in smaller communities. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN) /Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be/> > - www.isoc.eu <http://www.isoc.eu <http://www.isoc.eu/> > - www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> > Patrick Vande Walle schreef:
One point of explanation for those who were not in the teleconference yesterday. We agreed the Euralo would submit comments on the gTLD applicant's guide. The strawman proposal was a blog post I did a month ago, in French.
I am a bit at loss with the deadline for submitting comments. According to the French page on the ICANN web site, the deadline was 7 January. I can find no reference that the deadline was extended for comments that are not in English. Please advise.
I will try to incorporate the gist of Vittorio's (long) comment, as well as Beau's and Adam remarks.
Patrick
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:04:50 +0900, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
At 5:31 PM +0100 1/20/09, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
This was my blog post. Please comments to the list ASAP.
Patrick
As I mentioned on the call I agree with the two main points of Patrick's blog comment: the process is to costly, and ICANN the issue of morality and public order is problematic. Beau Brendler's comments on the morality and public order issue are good:
The user community questions, in general, whether ICANN is the appropriate venue to adjudicate morality and public order. But specifically, we strongly object to the notion that objections based on morality and public order will be considered by the International Chamber of Commerce. The ICC has not demonstrated a credible track record of representing consumer and non-commercial interests. It is an interest group made up of business concerns. We support and agree with the NCUC's concerns in this regard. We would like to see discussion opened immediately, before the new gTLD program is implemented, with the goal to surface and consider other organizations to fill this role, whose policy interests are not so circumscribed.
I think we could adopt Beau's words in this case. See
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?resource_page_for_alac_statement...>
for work being done by ALAC on these comments.
About cost. I would prefer to refer to Vittorio's example, see version here <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00022.html> I think more relevant to more grass roots interests. Or to use both Vittorio and the .cities comment.
A simple addition following comments I made last night:
EURALO does not support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process, we are particularly concerned about any delay to the introduction of IDN tlds, both generic and country code and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction.
We also note that the process is conducted largely in English, and the complex and lengthy documentation that must be understood before making an application introduces a strong bias toward English speaking applicants. International competition will not be enhanced through processes that disadvantage the non-English speaking world.
Other issues?
Thanks,
Adam
Commentaires envoyés à l¹ICANN concernant les nouveaux noms de
domaines
Comme de nombreux autres intervenants, je m¹interroge au sujet du coût lié tant à la soumission qu¹à l¹exploitation d¹un TLD attribué dans le cadre de cet exercice.
De fait, les coûts figurant actuellement dans le cahier des charges induisent le choix politique de gTLD vendant les noms de domaine en nombre. Il n¹y a pas de place dans le processus actuel pour des gTLD visant une communauté limitée. Il semble difficilement imaginable qu¹un registre vendant moins de 200.000 noms de domaine par an puisse survivre, compte tenu de la concurrence sur les prix entre TLD.
Par ailleurs, il peut s¹écouler plus d¹un an entre la soumission du dossier et le lancement de l¹exploitation commerciale du TLD. Cela implique une lourde charge financière, qui suppose que les soumissionnaires disposent d¹une solide trésorerie. Ce n¹est pas le cas des start-ups. Cela pose donc une barrière à l¹entrée qui
favorise
les acteurs historiques, qui ne devront pas supporter de tels coûts, puisqu¹ils disposent déjà de tout le nécessaire: personnel, infrastructure et revenus réguliers
Ailleurs dans le document, il est demandé de présenter dans le dossier de candidature les comptes annuels d¹exercices précédents. Cela implique à nouveau que des start-ups, ou des sociétés non-encore légalement formées ne pourront pas soumissionner.
Notons également que la nécessité de présenter dans le dossier de candidature l¹infrastructure technique qui sera utilisée. La conséquence est que le soumissionnaire devra choisir, dès le départ
un
gestionnaire technique (backend registry services provider). Du point de vue commercial, il serait pourtant avantageux que la mise en concurrence des prestataires techniques puissent se faire après la première ou la deuxième phase du processus d¹acceptation du dossier par l¹ICANN. Cela offrirait une position de négociation plus avantageuse au soumissionnaire.
Dans le contexte économique et financier actuel, il est plus que
probable
que de nouveaux entrepreneurs ne seront pas en mesure de concurrencer les opérateurs établis et donc d¹offrir de véritables alternatives si l¹ICANN ne révise pas fondamentalement à la baisse tant le droit de soumission que la contribution annuelle.
A ce titre, je soutiens la proposition citée dans les commentaires de dotCities ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00086.htm ) et ajoutant que cela peut s¹appliquer à de nombreux cas de TLD visant des communautés limitées en nombre.
Il convient également d¹éclaircir et de chiffrer le montant du remboursement possible si le soumissionnaire décide de retirer son dossier. Il est important pour tous les candidats qu¹ils soient en mesure de présenter un plan financier clair à leurs bailleurs de fonds. Dans ce domaine, le cahier des charges doit être limpide, y compris, et surtout pour les différentes phases d¹évaluation que l¹ICANN fera sous-traiter auprès de consultants externes, que les candidats devront rémunérer directement.
Concernant la problématique de la ³moralité et de l¹ordre public², il est nécessaire d¹insister sur le fait qu¹en cette matière l¹ICANN doit strictement se limiter à la chaine de caractères constituant le TLD. Toute présomption concernant les domaines de second niveau qui pourraient être enregistrés sous ce TLD, ou sur le contenu
de
sites web utilisant ce TLD, seraient clairement en dehors du mandat de l¹ICANN.
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1904 - Release Date: 20/01/2009 7:49
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i... Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>