Minds + Machines

ICANN’s 38th get-together, in Brussels, may become known as the meeting where the dust finally began to settle. Long-standing issues were settled, compromises were reached, no-one complained too much about the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook, and the Board stood by its project plan dates, even scheduling a Board retreat to solve remaining issues. Finally, there were no surprise “gotcha!” delays that gTLD applicants have been used to seeing at ICANN meeting. With one possible exception…

September Board Retreat – Good News

ICANN’s Board of Directors is going to take a special retreat, tentatively scheduled for September 2010, to try to sort out the remaining gTLD issues. This was publicly announced by Chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush and much discussed during the Brussels meeting. It is likely that the Board will hammer out some solutions on issues where opposing camps are insisting on their advantages and refusing to compromise.

The Board seems to be taking their task seriously, putting enormous pressure on various working groups (see my notes on the vertical integration working group, below) to produce proposals prior to their retreat. Applicants should be pleased with the vigor with which the Board has decided to address the remaining logjams.

.XXX Decision – Good News

The Board’s decision to green-light .XXX means new gTLD applicants can breathe a sigh of relief. The approval means that the new gTLDs program will not be threatened by .XXX-inspired court interference in the gTLD process. ICM Registry, .XXX’s sponsor, would almost certainly have sued ICANN if the decision had gone differently, and very likely they would have asked for an injunction to stop the introduction of new gTLDs — and they might have been successful. The ICANN Board decision to go ahead with .XXX, however heavily hedged with caveats, removes this threat. That’s good news for gTLD applicants.

Most of the press I’ve seen makes it seem as if .XXX is a done deal, and will be inserted into the root in short order. Unfortunately for the 162,000 reported pre-registration applications for .XXX, we are very far from that. One of the more intelligent analyses of the Board’s resolution is theTom Hymes story at AVN. To their credit, ICM’s blog has a thorough and fact-filled rundown of the remaining obstacles. My own assessment of .XXX isn’t very positive, but it is a good sign that ICANN is letting itself be compelled to following its own rules.

Intellectual Property Issues – Good News

Trademark advocates at ICANN will tell you that they are the reasonable ones, that the people who are unalterably opposed to new gTLDs don’t even show up at ICANN meetings. That may be, but members of ICANN’s intellectual property constituency have hardly been pushovers. Therefore it was a pleasure to witness hardline opponents to new gTLDs, including sharp critics from the BBC, Nestle, and the American Red Cross talk constructively about how they could benefit from them at a panel called “Brand Management in the Age of New gTLDs.”

For instance, Charlotte Walters of Orange (the phone company) had this to say:

I think we’re all about building and driving brand value, in which case if you have an asset that could become a mark of value and a mark of quality so that consumers would come to recognize that something that is dot Orange is genuine and that there is no risk of phishing or any other malicious acts underneath it, then that would be the ideal position that we are all aiming to get to. The question is, how long does it take you to get there.

In the meantime, I think that defensive registrations, which we’re all used to doing, is going to be an ongoing factor….

So on a longer-term view, yes, it — there is a lot of potential value. And from a marketing perspective, there’s a lot of potential value. But it will take a long time, I think, to educate internally and externally as to how to get there.

The intellectual property people fought hard for their position and achieved enormous gains, and now there is a sense that they should take their winnings quietly, which they seem to be doing. There are now several RPMs (rights protection mechanisms) in the Applicant Guidebook, including measures to shut down entire registries if they were found to be knowingly and systematically violating IP rights. The GAC (Government Advisory Committee) is no longer worrying that the sky will fall without more IP protections, and the Board opines quite openly that they see consensus in this area. Strident denunciations will continue, but at the meeting there was overwhelming agreement that we are finally past this hurdle.

Vertical Integration – Good News

The good news — and it is good news — is that the Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) is not going to delay new gTLDs. That doesn’t mean the results won’t affect new gTLDs, but it’s not going to slow things down.

Vertical Integration is another way of saying cross-ownership or control, and in this case the question is whether (and to what extent) a registry can own or control a registrar, or vice-versa. The Working Group (which I participate in) has a wide variety of entrenched positions, ranging from protectionist limitations on cross-ownership to a registrar-pleasing complete lack of barriers. The arguments are arcane, and because the limitations concern a future marketplace that no-one can really grasp, the proceedings are an anxious pandemonium of fears and doubts. But the Board has insisted on getting some kind of report in time for its retreat, and so the Working Group is likely to produce a very thin document that representing whatever consensus the group can achieve. The Board doesn’t want to decide this question on its own, but if it must, it will.

You can access the Working Group’s online resource page, or for a long slog you can read the Working Group’s email archives. A few weeks ago, I took the trouble to articulate the Minds + Machines position, which remains the same.

MOPO – Theoretical Knot with a Real-World Solution

MOPO, also called MAPO, stands for “Morality and Public Order,” which is the last big sticking point. Most did not consider it that big of an issue until this Brussels meeting, when the GAC first declared that ICANN’s whole approach to ferreting out immorality (having jurists decide if a TLD is immoral) was not acceptable and must be changed. They subsequently declared it was not their job to suggest anything in its place. Predictably, ICANN board members and staffers were annoyed, but must realize that ultimately they have to produce something that the GAC can live with. Watching the meetings, I didn’t sense that the GAC was using this as an issue to slow down new gTLDs; on the contrary, they seemed not to want to be seen as the reason for delay.

On the one hand, the GAC is right: the morality and public order module is a mess, bulked up with portentous phrases but basically passing the buck to some highly paid lawyers. On the other hand, the module fails precisely because it’s impossible to determine what’s immoral or not on a global basis — this is a circle that will not be squared. The debate is reminiscent of the struggles of the U.S. courts to define pornography, and the solution that was reached — local community standards — will serve here too.

A practical fix is needed, even if it doesn’t address the underlying (insoluble) problem. My guess is that, despite its overtones of censorship, ICANN will have to set up some kind of morality panel in judgment of names, and people it with diverse enough stakeholders to deflect claims of conspiracy. And the vast majority of TLDs will pass without a whisper of dissent. This panel will be just another objection chokepoint, joining the Independent Objector, the Geographic Names Panel, Community Objection and other procedures as a gateway that gTLD applications will have to pass through. Meanwhile, out in the real world, local jurisdictions may block some gTLDs locally if they find them offensive — just as they now block certain second-level domain names in .com.

Although MOPO is the most concerning of the remaining obstacles to opening the new gTLD process, and does have a chance of slowing down the process, there are a lot of committed people working on a solution. The real difficulty will be to shoehorn the practical solution into a theoretical framework that’s consistent with the principles everyone is keen to display.

The Bottom Line

The final shape of the applicant guidebook is becoming clear. With the possible exception of the MOPO issue, solutions to the remaining problems are visible in outline and in many cases in great detail. There are several efforts underway, including the Board retreat and various hurry-up working groups, to get the new gTLD program to the finish line. There’s always a chance that the timing will slip, but I would say not by much — we’re sticking to our timeline: most indications are that ICANN’s next meeting, in early December 2010 in Cartagena, Colombia, will finally produce a starting date for new gTLDs.

One of the pluses of being a veteran of ICANN meetings is the ability to pare down the schedule to what is relevant for our business plans. Minds + Machines will be focused on new gTLDs in Brussels. Following are my circled-with-a-big-red-pen session suggestions for those interested in new gTLDs.

Saturday, June 19

• 15:00 – 17:00 – The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) will discuss developments in the New gTLD process, including the latest Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG 4), TLD categories, and geographic names. Many of the changes in DAG 4 are the direct outcome of GAC recommendations. If you want a preview of how the rest of the week will play out, don’t miss this meeting.

Sunday, June 20

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) has two working sessions on New gTLDs.

• 09:00 – 10:15. Start the day observing the Vertical Integration PDP Working Group meeting with the GNSO Council. At the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, the Board pushed the community to resolve the debate on cross-ownership of registries and registrars by instituting a zero percent cross-ownership rule. This resolution disrupted some high-profile business plans. However, the Board will consider an alternate policy from the GNSO if one is created prior to the launch of the new gTLD program. Nearly 100 community members have participated in the Working Group to formulate a new policy.
• From 14:00 – 17:00 is the GNSO’s New gTLD Working Session. The GNSO will also be briefed on DAG 4 by Kurt Pritz, ICANN’s Senior Vice President.

Monday, June 21

Though some very important work is done during the three previous days, the meeting officially opens on Monday, June 21. If you are interested in the technical side of TLDs, drop in on the ccTLD Tech Day, where registry operators discuss implementing the latest standards and share experiences.

• 15:30 -17:30. Kurt Pritz will take the stage to brief the entire community on the status of the New gTLD program, the highlights of DAG 4 and — not to be missed — an accounting of the remaining open issues.

Tuesday, June 22

• 10:00 – 11:00. The new gTLD highlight on the schedule for Tuesday, a.k.a. “Constituency Day,” is the GAC’s discussion of Morality and Public order, a remaining overarching issue. Attend if you want a glimpse of how this issue could play out.

Wednesday, June 23

• 12:30 – 14:00. Update on Vertical Integration.
• 16:00 – 17:30. A panel discussion on “Reducing Barriers to New gTLD Creation in Developing Regions.” Board Resolution 20 in at the last ICANN meeting in Nairobi requested that the community “develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs.” Working Group members will announce several proposals for consideration. Some of the proposals will be controversial as there is a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs. Applicants, registry service providers, and incumbents will all benefit from attending this session.
• 16:00 – 17:30. Next door, at the same time, panelists will discuss “What brand protection and management measures entities need to consider before, during, and after the launch of the new gTLD program.”

Thursday, June 24.

• 13:30 – 18:00. You can sleep in Thursday morning, because the important public forum is scheduled for the afternoon. This is the time to speak your mind and ask questions directly to the Board before they lock down and decide how to vote on the issues Friday.

The schedule does change leading up to and throughout the meeting, so be sure to double-check the full schedule every morning to confirm dates and times.

Minds + Machines will have multiple representatives at the ICANN Brussels meeting, and we’d be glad to meet with you about our registry services, or just point you in the right direction. You’ll recognize us by our Minds + Machines lapel pins.

Minds + Machines’ parent company, Top Level Domain Holdings (AIM: TLDH), today sent out a press release summarizing our take on the recent ICANN Nairobi meeting from the TLDH perspective. The full text follows:

On Friday, 12 March 2010, at a meeting in Nairobi of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), ICANN’s Board of Directors clarified and progressed further the framework for the introduction of generic top level domains (“gTLDs”).

The ICANN Board resolved that there should be no cross-ownership between domain name registries and registrars. This prohibition will prevent existing ICANN-accredited registrars from owning or operating new gTLDs, thus limiting the number of prospective applicants. This continues a trend of increasing the barriers to application for non-experts as ICANN adds additional requirements and restrictions to the framework for the introduction of gTLDs. TLDH is unaffected by this policy and the Board of TLDH therefore expects that TLDH will benefit from this continuing separation between registrars and registries.

The ICANN Board also resolved that ICANN should focus on the full introduction of gTLDs later this year rather than implement an intermediate step by adoption of the Expressions of Interest/Pre-Registrations Proposal. The ground rules for application for new gTLDs are expected to be published by early summer 2010. Accordingly, as ICANN approaches the point where it will be able to proceed with full applications, the Expressions of Interest (“EoI”) program becomes unnecessary. ICANN staff reported during the Nairobi meeting that the next draft of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, expected to be issued in June, will be near final, and subject only to a final comment period.

While we were supportive of the EoI proposal, we welcome ICANN’s focus that the main objective should be to speed up the gTLD process, and the intermediate step of EoIs is unnecessary if ICANN is close to resolving the final details prior to the launch of new gTLDs.

With our substantial cash resources, low operating costs and our significant interests in prospective applicants for .eco, .nyc, .berlin, .bayern and .gay amongst others, and also with the restriction on competition that has been placed on existing registrars, we believe that TLDH is well positioned ahead of the start of the gTLDs application and award process.

Following the ICANN Board meeting, Rod Beckstrom, ICANN’s chief executive, provided further details on the gTLD process, which is available on-line at http://bit.ly/buru8z.

I regret that the posts on our blog are getting more and more specialist, but I don’t apologize. As things come to a head for new gTLDs, we are getting through the final details, which have become proxies for the larger battle. So it is with Expressions of Interest.

Here at the ICANN Nairobi meeting, I’ve heard some talk from people in the non-commercial constituency — usually an ally in getting new gTLDs approved — about how Expressions of Interest (EOIs) may be harmful to small registries. To be honest, I have a hard time fathoming the objections, because it seems to me that EOIs are extremely helpful to small registries. In fact, EOIs may be the only way they can survive the ICANN process.

(Expressions of Interest is the process where companies who want to apply for new gTLDs will have to submit their new TLD name, their contact details, and a check for $55,000, which will be counted toward the final $185,000 application fee. The process is mandatory, and the purpose is gather information on the applicant pool so that ICANN (and the technical operators of the Internet) can gather the data they need to take applications and prepare to delegate the new gTLDs. At the end of the process, all the information will be published, and only those who put in an EOI submission will be allowed to apply.)

“Small registries” mean primarily cultural-linguistic communities, for instance the already-announced .BZH (Brittany), .GAL (Galicia), and .EUS (Basque community). (It does not include city TLDs, which are “geographical TLDs” with special rules.) Each of these small registries has a community of several million, which during the first few years of operations will translate into a registry that contains less than 100,000 names. This is based on .CAT (Catalonia), which started several years ago and at present has about 40,000 names in their zone. There is an assumption, which may or may not be warranted but which we can all accept, that there may be others of a similar type. There is also general agreement that these sorts of registries are valuable to the DNS and should be helped wherever possible. Therefore the argument that EOIs would hurt these registries is of special concern.

So what are the arguments being advanced on behalf of these registries against EOIs?

1. That the $55,000 is too expensive and disproportionally hurts small registries
2. It will be hard for small registries to raise $55,000 and then later go raise another $130,000, and it will be hard to raise it by the EOI start date (August 2010 at the earliest)
3. That having to reveal one’s identity will give powerful actors more time to object
4. That EOIs, by adding a step to the process, will slow down the gTLD process

Of these, only the last one has any merit, but even if it’s true (which I don’t believe), it still helps small registries. Let me address the objections and show why they don’t make sense.

1. $55,000 is expensive, to be sure, but that’s a “feature” of the new gTLD program as a whole, not the EOIs. Overall, the $185,000 filing fee has not changed, it’s just that some of it is due earlier. Considering that ICANN had originally contemplated introducing new gTLDs in early 2009, it cannot be considered “early” at all. Furthermore, the real cost to small registries is keeping their operations going while they wait for the seemingly endless ICANN process to finish, not to mention the extremely demoralizing uncertainty about whether it will happen at all. When the EOI process finishes, and small registries know that they have a guaranteed and protected application “slot,” they will be much better off, because they will know that the process is happening and they will have some clarity around milestones and (hopefully) the re-establishment of a timeline.

2. Perhaps we can chalk it up the fact that non-commercial interests almost by definition aren’t experienced in raising money for commercial ventures, but almost any business person will tell you that the less risk you have, the easier it is to raise money. EOIs remove a very significant element of risk. When the EOI results are announced, most of the small registries will be guaranteed that they are the only applicant for their string (it is unlikely that there will be two applications for .GAL, for instance). That makes it *much* easier to raise money. The EOI submission date will also be a deadline – another very helpful element in raising money. Finally, because the entire $185,000 fee is known in advance, they will not need to go back to their funding source with a “surprise” second round, it will be plain to see from the outset.

3. Suppose that the Tamil people wanted to do .TAMIL, and faced the objection of the Sri Lankan government, who have just concluded a terrible and bloody war against Tamil separatists. Because EOIs occur earlier (the argument goes), it would give the objectors more time to prepare their case. This argument flies in the face of reality — and the ICANN process. The objection process (which will occur after the TLD application is submitted) will already take many many months, plenty of time for objectors to marshall their arguments. Whatever additional time is given to objectors, is also given to applicants — to either counter the objection, or to work out an arrangement. Finally, the ICANN process is not set up to put in “hidden” applications: for an application to succeed, it will have to overcome objections, it can’t try to sneak past them.

(I should note that brands who oppose new gTLDs have seized on this last argument and are evincing a a new and touching solicitude for the fate of politically sensitive small registries. Would that have anything to do with the fact that brands themselves don’t want to be forced to show to the world that they are busy planning their new gTLD applications even as they try to wreck the process?)

4. EOIs do add a step in the process, but it shouldn’t take more time, since things are all proceeding concurrently. Even if it does add months to the process, which I doubt, that is more than compensated for by the fact that EOIs add clarity, certainty, and something concrete that applicants can show their investors, their community, and their shareholders.

The proof of the pudding? In the ICANN EOI comment period, small registries supported EOIs. And all applicants, large or small, rich or poor, community-based or entrepreneurial, want this process to be predictable, orderly, and certain. For some small registries, their survival depends on it. EOIs provide all of that and more.

Yesterday, at the .ORG Forum, ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom said,

There’s a clash of models going on in the world. It’s a clash of this decentralized multi-stakerholder model versus traditional government top-down model or centralized models. And this model we’re working on is different, it’s a mix. Governments are stakeholders, but they’re not the only stakeholders. They’re participants, but they’re not dominant. And trying to maintain that balance is one of the great challenges all of us face, particularly when there are those who would that seek to control things. And the question we should always be asking is ‘What’s best for the public?’

And at the ICANN Studienkreis last week in Barcelona, I asked a panel that included Fiona Alexander from the U.S. NTIA how the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) saw its responsibilities to listen to the ICANN community now that the GAC has an effective veto on ICANN policy. Ms. Alexander told me that I was entirely mistaken to think that the GAC had a veto.

Officially, then, governments are just one group of many that participate at ICANN. If so, ICANN and the GAC need to get the word out, because the rest of the domain name world is treating a letter from GAC head Janis Karklins as if it were the thunderous voice of God.

This letter, which warned the ICANN Board not to consider the Expressions of Interest proposal until the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, has been greeted with such headlines as Governments Deliver Another Blow to New Top Level Domain Timeline, and privately ICANN Board members have told us that it’s now “impossible” to support Expressions of Interest prior to the Nairobi meeting for fear of annoying the GAC.

In contrast, the unanimous vote of the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) in favor of Espressions of Interest has attracted no notice at all. The ALAC, which represents individual users of the Internet, has in in principle the same weight as any other advisory committee (such as the GAC), but apparently some equals are more equal than others.

The new Affirmation of Commitments, the “charter” for ICANN, clearly sets up an expanded role for the GAC. It is responsible (in part) for choosing the people who will conduct reviews of ICANN, and it is repeatedly mentioned in the Affirmation, while other ICANN groups are not.

The question is, does the new role of the GAC give them a veto power over ICANN? Formally, the answer is no. In practical terms, however, judging from the reaction to their “advice,” mere grumbling from the GAC can upset ICANN timelines.

It’s up to the ICANN Board and the CEO to determine where they are going to draw the lines with GAC. It’s up to the ICANN community to insist that as an important part of that community, the GAC not only injects its opinion into the debate, but listens as well. The stakes are high, because as Rod Beckstrom correctly notes:

The Internet has not been successful because one company or five companies got together and formed a cartel, and said “this is going to be the standard,” or a government said “this is going to be the standard”…. Mankind is facing global issues that have to be managed on a global basis. What we’re doing here [at ICANN] is an exciting and important new model for what can be used for addressing and solving many of these problems.

Whether the new model is “exciting,” as Mr. Beckstrom says, or depressing, as many fear, will turn in large part on determining the influence of governments within ICANN. The first indications will come from ICANN’s Board of Directors at their next meeting in February.

A group of people met at the ICANN meeting in Seoul and called themselves the Expressions of Interest Working Group — EOI-WG in ICANNese.

We were trying to come up with a way to get the ball rolling on new gTLDs, and we thought that if we could just get a list of the new TLDs and the people who were going to apply for them — well, then we would know a lot.

We’d replace the theorizing with practical knowledge, with many benefits.

• We’d know how many new TLDs there would be, so we could stop seeing the phrase: “…a potentially unlimited number of names.” We’d also be able to address root scaling issues on an empirical basis.
• We’d know which new TLDs would eventually be applied for, and who would be applying for them, giving lots of time for brand owners and governments and others with jealous privileges to prepare their objections, and relieve us from the theoretical evils that today are forecast with ease and assurance.
• ICANN would know enough to assign resources in response to actual data, which would result in a cheaper, faster, and clearer process.
• Applicants would know if they were the only ones, or if they needed to prepare for an auction or a settlement. Clarity, which has been a rare element so far in the process, would be theirs.

So the Working Group continued on from Seoul to hold several meetings and produce several drafts, and the Report of the Expressions of Interest Working Group has now been submitted to ICANN.

Here’s the cover letter I wrote when I submitted the Report, to give you a flavor of the contents.

On behalf of the Expressions of Interest Working Group (EOI-WG), I am pleased
to submit our final report to ICANN, attached here as a PDF file. In
addition, I have attached the EOI-WG charter, which sets our composition and
our remit.

The EOI-WG makes a series of specific recommendations about the EOI process, as
well as providing point-by-point answers to the questions asked by ICANN staff
for this comment period. In each case, our recommendations are accompanied by
the reasons for them. Where applicable, the level of consensus is also noted
(e.g., “unanimous consensus” or “strong consensus”).

Our report also contains discussion of suggestions that we did not make as
recommendations, and the reasons why they were not adopted as consensus
recommendations.

The Working Group met first during the ICANN meeting in Seoul and then, with
expanded ranks, by telephone call. We also set up a mailing list for our
discussions. The Working Group was comprised of a diverse group of people,
acting on their on behalf and not as representatives of any stakeholder group
or constituency. Our goal was to see if we could come up with recommendations
to help ICANN implement an Expressions of Interest process for new gTLDs as
called for by the resolution of ICANN’s Board of Directors on October 29, 2009
at their meeting in Seoul. Although ICANN did offer to provide us with
resources, we decided to privately fund the entire effort in order to avoid
squabbles about whether we were official or not. We’re not official — we’re
just some people who got together to make some recommendations.

In brief, our report recommends the following:

1. An Expressions of Interest procedure is desirable and should be implemented
as soon as possible
2. The Expressions of Interest procedure should be mandatory for anyone seeking
to apply for a new generic top-level domain
3. A $55,000 fee must accompany the submission of an Expression of Interest for
each string sought, refundable only in very limited circumstances
4. At the close of the Expressions of Interest submission window, ICANN should
publish at least the name of the submitter and the string submitted
5. ICANN should publicize the Expressions of Interest procedure in a manner
sufficient to assure fairness to those who may as yet be unaware of the new
gTLD program, but this communications period should be as short as possible
within this constraint

Questions about the EOI-WG and its recommendations will be answered by reading
the attached report and charter, as well as by reviewing our deliberations.
The archives of our mailing list may be found at
http://lists.pra.im/pipermail/eoi-wg/. The archives also contain links to MP3
recordings of our two phone calls, held on Nov. 9 2009 and on Nov. 13 2009, as
well as the various drafts that we considered, in clean and redlined versions.
The EOI-WG members are listed in both the report and our charter.

We hope and expect that our work will be helpful to ICANN, to the ICANN
community, and to the new gTLD process.

Respectfully,

Antony Van Couvering
EOI-WG co-ordinator

I urge everyone who wants new top-level domains to read the report, and to make your voice heard on the ICANN Expressions of Interest comments site.

What’s ICANN without acronyms? Here’s a new one: IRT. That’s not Interborough Rapid Transit, the subway on the west side of Manhattan, it’s the Implementation Recommendation Team. Their job is to come up with a plan to address the concerns of trademark holders in connection with the introduction of new TLDs.

What’s brilliant about this move is that the team is comprised of people who suggested solutions to the trademark quandary during the public comments to the last version of the guidebook. Those who simply said “hurrah” or “harumph” will not be asked for any more of their opinions.

Nicely played, ICANN.

Mexico City, Mexico… March 7, 2009: ICANN’s 34th International public meeting in Mexico City has drawn to a close after the organization’s Board of Directors approved the establishment by staff of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) comprised of an internationally diverse group of people to develop and propose solutions to the over-arching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs).

“The Board has clearly heard and believes strongly that the concerns of trademark holders must be addressed before this process is opened for applications,” said Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of the Board of Directors of ICANN. “The establishment of this team, is an attempt to get proposed solutions from the people with skill in trademark protection and other issues.”

The IRT will be comprised of people who put forward solutions in the first public comment period on the new GTLD Applicant Guidebook. The IRT has been asked to draft a report by 24 April for comment and to produce a final report no later than 24 May so it can be considered at ICANN’s Sydney meeting in June.

With huge thanks to the folks at Dynamic Network Services here are interviews with Elaine Pruis and Jothan Frakes. Good questions, good answers, lots of information.

Elaine Pruis

Jothan Frakes

ICANN has released preliminary reports on competition and pricing for new TLDs. The reports done by Professor of Economics Dennis Carlton of the University of Chicago cover the impact of new gTLDs on consumer welfare and price caps for new gTLD Internet registries.

In the report “Preliminary Report of Dennis Carlton Regarding Impact of New gTLDs on Consumer Welfare,” Professor Carlton states:

“I conclude that ICANN’s proposed framework for introducing new TLDs is likely to improve consumer welfare by facilitating entry and creating new competition to the major gTLDs such as .com, .net, and .org. Like other actions that remove artificial restrictions on entry, the likely effect of ICANN’s proposal is to increase output, lower price and increase innovation. This conclusion is based on the fundamental principles that competition promotes consumer welfare and restrictions on entry impede competition.”

The other report, “http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/prelim-report-registry-price-caps-04mar09-en.pdf,” addresses pricing issues associated with new TLDs. He concludes as follows:

“I conclude that price caps or ceilings on prices charged by operators of new gTLD registries are unnecessary to insure competitive benefits of the proposed process for introducing new gTLDs. I further conclude that imposing price caps on the registries for new gTLDs could inhibit the development and marketplace acceptance of new gTLDs by limiting the pricing flexibility of entrants to the provision of new registry services without generating significant benefits to registrants of the new gTLDs.”

These are among the first of many reports we will see on new TLDs in the coming months which are sure to spark heated discussions.

For those of you who think the domain space is still blissfully under the radar, you are wrong. The Pope himself is getting in on the action with a concern about religious TLDs.

According to thedomains.com

The Vatican warned ICANN of the “perils” of allowing new internet domains such as “.catholic, .anglican, .orthodox, .hindu, .islam, .muslim, and .Buddhist.”
ICANN, could find itself having to decide who gets to represent an entire religion on the internet, His Holiness pointed out, in a letter from Monsignor Carlo Maria Polvani.

As if ICANN does not have enough on its hands at the moment. To quote one ICANN attendee overheard on the conference floor, “Why do people hate the future?”