ICANN’s current plan for a Continued Operations Instrument (COI) is a self-insurance scheme that asks registries to tie up a massive amount of cash, when much cheaper and more sensible options are available. The COI is a massive barrier to entry for all applicants, and one that hits smaller registries and those from developing countries with disproportionate weight. The COI requires massive amounts of cash to be set aside in case of business failure. It is so punitive that it will certainly encourage falsely conservative sales volume estimates by applicants, and likely to lead to higher prices for registrants. Combined with the Emergency Backend Registry Operator (EBERO) RFI, it will rob developing registries of much-needed funding during their critical first few years, and use the funds from the resulting failures to reward large incumbent registries. This is not a conspiracy theory — several incumbent registries, notably Afilias, also recognize this plan as dumb and have been working actively to make it more sensible: all boats float on a rising tide, and sink together too.

While registrants do need to be protected against registry failure, the ICANN formula for the COI seems much better calculated to cause registry failures than to prevent them.

The requirements for the COI are given in Question 50 of the Application Guidebook. Basically, the applicant has to set aside funds (or get a letter of credit) to assure “core registry functions” for 3 years. Core registry functions are: access to the shared registry system; Whois, DNS resolution; data escrow; and DNSSEC. That sounds reasonable enough until you start to get into the details — and the difference between what this would actually cost and what ICANN wants set aside.

At a recent session at the ICANN Dakar meeting dedicated to the COI, no-one spoke in favor of the current COI requirement. A registry stakeholder group proposal that would pool the risk was shot down by intellectual property interests, who predictably were not in favor of a mandatory payment to protect others (large companies will have no problem coming up with the COI). Others insisted that the pool was a form of insurance, and ICANN should not be in the insurance business. But some preliminary ideas toward the solution proposed in this post did receive some support. The way forward is provide estimates of actual likely costs, instead of the “sky is falling” scenario that the current plan envisages. Several groups are working to gather such data to present to ICANN. This post critiques the current system and provides an outline for a way forward.

Delay Is Not an Option

A short but important point: changing the amount of the COI does not mean a delay: it is not a change in policy, it is only a method for more reasonably estimating cost. The EBERO RFI, as the name implies, is a request for information. This too can be modified within the parameters of existing policy. Everyone involved in trying to reform this crazy mechanism has spoken out against any delays.

The Amount of the COI Is Directly Tied to the EBERO

Quoth the Guidebook:

The Continuing Operations Instrument (COI) is invoked by ICANN if necessary to pay for an Emergency Back End Registry Operator (EBERO) to maintain the five critical registry functions for a period of three to five years. Thus, the cost estimates are tied to the cost for a third party to provide the functions, not to the applicant’s actual in-house or subcontracting costs for provision of these functions.

Note that ICANN is building a model for these costs in conjunction with potential EBERO service providers. Thus, guidelines for determining the appropriate amount for the COI will be available to the applicant. However, the applicant will still be required to provide its own estimates and explanation in response to this question.

That’s what the Guidebook says, but that’s not what the EBERO RFI says. The EBERO is filled with extraneous requirements that have nothing to do with core registry functions, with the result that only large incumbent registries can qualify.

What Are the Real Costs of Transitioning a Failed Registry?

A registry stakeholder group presentation estimates that the current system would require a registry with 100,000 names in Year 3 to set aside $450,000, and a registry with 1,000,000 names in Year 3 to set aside $4,500,000. Will this kill any growing business? Is this more than most registries’ estimated profit margin? Is this completely crazy? Yes, yes, and yes.

You would think that ICANN would have done some research into the real costs of providing these five core functions to a failed registry. Maybe they did, but it doesn’t show. Let’s look at what it will actually cost. There are a few answers:

• The first and most likely answer is “almost nothing,” because the registry service provider of a failing registry can easily be persuaded to continue these operations (M+M guarantees it for their clients). That’s because in their assessment the risk is low (or they wouldn’t work with the registry in the first place) and because their incremental cost to do so is in fact near zero.
• A second answer is also “almost nothing,” because even supposing the registry operator *in addition to the registry* were to fail (a very low likelihood), in most cases any other registry service provider would be happy to pick up the names, since their incremental costs to run additional names are also near zero (there are transition costs, but these are not great — M+M transitioned a sizable zone over a weekend).
• A third answer is the ICANN way: multiply the estimated volume registrations by a dollar amount to be determined by the results of the EBERO RFI — which is only open to the most expensive incumbent registries, who charge orders of magnitude more than smaller, perhaps more efficient registries. (As one example among many, VeriSign charges $7 per name per year for .com names; Minds + Machines and many of its competitors charge less than $2 at a fraction of the volume of .com — and per-unit costs generally fall with increased scale).

Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of transition costs drawn from both the ccTLD and gTLD world that provide actual costs, and there is an effort to gather up these examples and provide them to ICANN, to give them cover (sigh) to do something sensible.

Accrediting Registry Service Providers

ICANN doesn’t like Answers 1 and 2, because (they say) “How do we know that the new registry service provider can do the job?”

Actually, the question should be reframed, “Why don’t you know?” because frankly they should know already. ICANN’s reluctance to accredit registry service providers is the greatest source of unnecessary cost and delay in the post-application period.

Without a doubt the biggest inefficiency of ICANN’s new gTLD process is the silly requirement of answering the entire tech section for each and every application. There are only a few registry service providers — Minds + Machines is one of perhaps ten — and nearly every application will use one of them. Although it’s theoretically possible to file an application for a system that’s not yet built, the level of detail required by the application effectively requires an existing, working registry. And yet for each new gTLD application, the tech section, the bulk of the application, will be reviewed anew in its entirety. So if there are 1000 applications, the evaluation of the tech section will be duplicated effort for 990 of them. I defy anyone to defend this as sensible.

Why did ICANN not simply accredit registry service providers, so that applications using accredited providers would not need to be tested and retested. Given that the application fee is based on cost recovery, an accreditation process would surely have reduced the $185,000 to something more manageable. Now that this opportunity has passed, accrediting registry providers for the five core registry functions is surely possible.

Happily, the fix is within reach and will not require further policy development or delay, if only ICANN comes to its senses. One obvious solution lies in amending the current EBERO RFI. In fact, amending the EBERO RFI could result in huge cost and time savings across the board.

The EBERO: Gold Mine for Incumbent Registries, Paid for by Applicants

The EBERO as written could be retitled the “Incumbent Registry Free Money RFI.” It is in fact a registry service provider accreditation program, but only for the chosen few. It is written to exclude any provider who is not a high-volume incumbent, assumes a .com-like one-size-fits-all model, and includes pages of requirements that have nothing to do with providing “core registry services,” even though Question 50 of the Guidebook links the two explicitly. In fact, the EBERO is filled with requirements that aren’t required of applicants in the Guidebook. Why are they required here?

Here are some examples of overreaching EBERO requirements (picked from among many such entries):

• High Capacity traffic service capability
• Ability to handle up to 20,000 concurrent client connections and a daily minimum peak volume of 2 million transactions with a read/write ratio of 10/1 (based on an estimated 1 million aggregate domains in the EBERO).
• Provide examples of thought leadership, industry participation, and publications that highlight your experience ["Thought leadership" as a technical requirement? - puh-leeze!]
• Ability to support and maintain IDN registrations
• Multiple DNS service locations that are geographically diverse and can be demonstrated to fully serve global resolutions
• Ability to accept live call volumes from an estimated user base of 300 and an expected contact rate of 15-20% during emergency migration periods without queuing times exceeding 10 minutes

The list goes on, one gold-plated requirement after another. The problems with this approach are manifold, but they all stem from the idea that one registry service provider should be able to handle *any and all* failing registries. That’s just plain silly — why not accredit a diversity of registry service providers as EBERO candidates and then assign failing registries to them according to the requirements of the registry?

Why the EBERO Doesn’t Make Sense As Written

The EBERO doesn’t pass the sniff test:

• Even though the most likely scenario for registry failure is an inability to sell as many names as estimated, resulting in a registry with few names, the EBERO calls for high-volume experience only. If anything, they should be looking for low-volume experience.
• If the failing registry doesn’t sell IDNs, why should the EBERO support them?
• If the failing registry only has 3 registrars, why should the EBERO support 300 concurrently?
• Data escrow, one of the five core registry services, is by definition outsourced. DNS is not outsourced necessarily, but in many cases it makes good sense both financially and technically (for redundancy) to do so. Why does the EBERO need to provide DNS services? ICANN could easily ask for EDNS (Emergency DNS) providers — they would line up to provide reasonably priced services.
• The EBERO as drafted assumes (unreasonably) that it will take 3 years to find a new home for the registry. Instead of providing a gold mine to large incumbent registries with little obligation, why not ask EBERO’s to provide a permanent home? In that case the funding wouldn’t need to cover three years — more like three weeks at the outside.
• Why should billing be suspended during the emergency period? If functions are being provided as normal, why not accept renewals at least, if not new registrations? This would substantially reduce the amount needed in the COI.

The EBERO as written is perfect for the fool who gives away millions of .BLAH registrations and then finds that no-one wants to renew them for money. For everything else, it’s overkill, and tying the COI for all registries to the cost of rescuing .BLAH is unreasoningly punitive. ICANN is asking all applicants to tie up precious cash reserves to cover for ICANN’s poor planning in this regard, and the result will be that new registries will find it hard to market their new TLDs in the critical first years of their registries — leading, inevitably, to registry failures.

Fix the EBERO, and the COI Suddenly Becomes Reasonable

ICANN should ditch the one-size-fits-all EBERO specification, and change it to accept a diversity of models, and rate registry service providers for volume of names, IDN capabilities, and some other criteria. Most of all, they should be rated on their ability to provide the required core registry services, and not on the number of gold-plated toilet seats they have. Once rated, these providers would be accredited for the capabilities they provide. Will this take a while? Maybe, but no new registry will be online for over a year. ICANN should also ask for Emergency DNS providers, since DNS can be easily provided independently of the Shared Registration System. DNS prices in the open market range from free to expensive — again, one size does not fit all. Overall, the prices for emergency services would drop drastically, and the effect would be to re-price the COI at a reasonable amount.

In a free market, registry service providers would be lining up to provide transition services for free if they were allowed to collect renewal fees for a certain period of time. Why is this not allowed in the EBERO? Only in extreme cases would there be no takers, and only then should a larger payment be invoked. The EBERO as written is a gift to large incumbent registries to pick up distressed registries (probably permanently, because why should they move again?), leaving aspiring applicants to pay for their gain via the COI.

There is a better way, and if ICANN (and, ahem, the GAC) actually gave a thought about the real-world issues faced by small registries or those from developing countries, they would insist on tying the COI to a real-world cost, and they would resist give-aways to incumbents through a guaranteed-income scheme paid for by struggling newbies. The COI and EBERO severely reduce choice and competition, and the security they promise is illusory and unsupported by experience or fact. They need to be changed, and the way to do it is to widen the field of emergency providers and thereby reduce the cost of the COI.

Getting Bill Clinton is a bona-fide PR coup for ICANN. The man can conjure loopy star-struck grins from even the most heavily-lobbied government functionaries, and his cameo will focus the Silicon Valley spotlight on the meeting where — we hope and expect — new gTLDs will get their final approval. For a brief moment the tech blogs might even take a break from their relentless, lifeless posts about iPhones and mobile check-ins and $500K funding rounds and spend a second or two considering the coming sea-change in Internet addressing and navigation.

The inevitable tech press that Clinton’s presence will generate will be good for ICANN and for Silicon Valley too. ICANN acts as if it floats in a static, timeless bubble, protected from the rest of the Internet, and doesn’t understand or acknowledge that gargantuan phenomena like Facebook might completely change how we navigate and message on the Web, or how the ascendancy of apps might make the whole idea of navigating on the web obsolete. Oblivious, it has no strategy to deal with such challenges. ICANN’s impending encounter with the ferocious energy and money of Silicon Valley will be bracing and salutary for the ICANN Board and staff and community and they might (maybe) begin to see the bigger picture.

The tech world, for its part, doesn’t know much about ICANN apart from a foreboding sense that getting anything done there is harder than selling Robert Mapplethorpe photos to the Taliban, and that bizarre Internet policy wonks will yell at you if you try. The tech press has ignored the huge branding and community-formation potential of new gTLDs, and hasn’t woken up to the danger of letting the public policy and legal protections that are built into DNS policy (thanks to ICANN) get replaced by the logic-immune legal departments of Facebook and Twitter, who conduct all business with the public by autoresponder. Because although TechCrunch honcho Michael Arrington might get his name back more easily by calling Twitter than by filing a UDRP, the rest of us wouldn’t. It’s important that these two worlds engage with one another. ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom deserves credit for starting up an office in Palo Alto, and whoever snagged Clinton deserves a free gTLD.

Even governments are getting in on the act. The former president’s star turn at ICANN, coupled with the sudden resurgence of the North Korean TLD, shows that regardless of your position on absolute government control over the Internet, just about everyone loves top-level domains.

The quick take-away is that the new gTLD process is now nearly inevitable, and that the GAC and the ICANN Board will meet in February 2011 to resolve the remaining issues. This will push the timeline out, but not by much, perhaps a month or two.

In brief, the Board passed a resolution (link not yet available) that they consider several matters in the Guidebook closed, but that several other remain and that they will have a summit with the GAC in February 2011 to resolve remaining issues.

Of huge import is that among the issues considered closed are the trademark issues. Since this has always been the issue holding up the new gTLD process, we can now say that we are definitely moving forward.

The other big issue now considered closed is the economic analysis, which has been the big issue from the Department of Commerce. Other issues deemed closed are root scaling and malicious conduct.

As Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush said on stage, “We have reached a turning point.”

We now therefore have a clear path forward. Finally.

RESOLVED (2010.10.28.17), the Board directs staff to adopt as a working plan the Launch Scenario with launch date of Q2 2011, as contained in the graphic attached here [PDF, 112 KB].

Here’s the timeline in graphical form, from ICANN (click for larger version):

Highlights:

• November 9, 2010 – Final Guidebook out for public comment
• December 10, 2010 (end of Cartagena meeting) – Board approves Final Guidebook
• January 10, 2011 – Final Guidebook published (after any changes directed by Board
• January 10, 2011 – Four-month ICANN publicity effort (“communications period”) begins
• May 30, 2011 – Opening of the application window for new gTLDs

It’s been a long, long road, but it looks as if we’re finally in sight of the finishing line. Let the policy work finish. Let the applications begin. Gentlemen, start your engines.

The short version is that the news is good for new gTLDs. ICANN is nailing down the final outstanding issues and the timetable is clearer than ever.

Predictions

1. The Board will make the new gTLD program happen by March 2011.
2. The official announcement will be at the ICANN meeting in March in San Francisco.
3. The final Applicant Guidebook will be published before the San Francisco meeting, which means that we’ll know a lot even before the official announcement.

The Board is determined to make gTLDs happen soon

On a number of contentious issues, the Board resolutions gave some finality. In general, they stuck with what they had already decided. Some highlights:

• Fees: fees will remain the same at $185,000 per application. No price breaks for anyone.
• Root Scaling: ICANN estimates that they can add 1000 new gTLDs to the root per year. Of course, they can take many more applications than that, but this is the number they think they can safely introduce into the wild. Most estimates put the number of new gTLD applications at 500 or under.
• Trademarks: trademarks will need to have “substantive review.” As with most things trademarkian, this is a little complicated, but in practice it means that you can’t just go register a trademark and then use it to challenge registrations: you must also have used it in trade.
• Morality and Public Order: On this issue, where the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) essentially vetoed the previous procedure, the Board was less than clear. A working group (which I participated in) came up with some recommendations, and the Board said that they would use “recommendations that are not inconsistent with the existing process.” So we don’t know exactly what this will look like. Unless you’re planning to inflame social hatred, however, your application is unlikely to be affected no matter what the outcome.
• Vertical Integration: The Board noted that the working group tasked with sorting this out (which I also participated in) could reach no consensus, and that they (the Board) would make a decision.
• San Francisco: the next ICANN meeting after December in Cartagena will be March in San Francisco. This is the big news that makes the timeline clear.

To give a sense of the Board’s determination, here’s an excerpt from ICANN’s post-retreat bulletin:

The detailed Board discussion was guided by recent community input and provided direction in the implementation of trademark protections, the new registry agreement terms, measures to mitigate malicious conduct, and ensuring root zone stability. The resolutions indicate that many important issues have been addressed, including trademark protection, morality and public order, and vertical integration.

Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush indicated that “The board made considerable progress on the remaining issues and has asked staff to prepare additional working papers and a modified applicant guidebook for public review prior to the upcoming ICANN meeting in Cartagena in December 2010. The meeting results represent a key milestone after years of work by the ICANN community as we prepare for community discussion and debate in Cartagena.”

Reviewing the Board direction, President and CEO Rod Beckstrom stated, “ICANN is prepared to implement this important new offering to increase consumer choice and to promote competition.”

The official kick-off will be at ICANN San Francisco in March 2011

The March meeting will take place in the front yard of the tech industry, which in general pays little attention to the domain name world. This time, they will be watching, and therefore this is a perfect place for ICANN leaders to cover themselves in glory and boast of their achievement in finally getting gTLDs going. It doesn’t require much of a crystal ball to predict that this is where and when the new gTLD program will get its final blessing.

Applicants will have plenty of information before March

It seems that the plan is to publish a version of the Applicant Guidebook before Cartagena, take comments, then release a final version sometime after the December ICANN meeting in Cartagena, Colombia. Since this will be the final guidebook, it should include all the information pertinent to an application, including the dates of the application window. The San Francisco meeting is likely to be a coronation, not an election. To the extent possible, everything will already have been decided, and everything will be choreographed. Which means we’ll probably hear about stuff well in advance.

Summary

We all know better than to say “sure thing” when it comes to ICANN, right? Right…

Still, the momentum is palpable and the timeline is clearer than it has ever been. The main risk factor is new obstructionism by GAC, fueled by lobbying by trademark owners, who continue to claim that the program will be too expensive for them. But it looks as if the ship is edging into the destination harbor at last.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.