How can ICANN even hint that it considers’s community input in it decisions?

Twice before it turned down the outrageous “XXX tld” application,

Update Now, like a victim of an aggressive persistent dating suitor,on reproach(a third time) it rolls over and declares, “well okay,but promise to be nice”

I ask, is that in the communities interest to now have new addition Porno Vendors (with legitimate business loans?)stalking a new
parade innocents with corruption and decadence..

I suggest, that ICANN implement a new…

” .Con TLD ” for all the scammers,pirates,and anti- social physopaths, it would be no different that would they are allowing now,
with the “hidden Message” if you don’t like our decision the first couple of tries, just come back in a couple of years, with perhaps
some fat wallet and help us make our quota so we get our bonus…

Yes,WE KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY…
(A Wink and a Nod)

Has anyone been secretly thinking that ICANN is just another corrupt bureaucratic entity?

In the letter from the DOJ, December 2008, they seem to indicate from their studies that GNSO’s current thinking on competition from new gTLDs is flawed.

From the DOJ letter,

“In light of these findings, we believe that the introduction of new gTLDs under the RFP could impose substantial additional domain registration costs on many consumers and that many new gTLD registry operators may have market power over registrants. Further, the introduction of new gTLDs is not likely to constrain the exercise of market power by existing gTLDs or ameliorate the continuing need for restraints to prevent VeriSign from exercising market power in the sale of .com domains.”

They actually suggest “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”

And they believe “ICANN’s approach to TLD management demonstrates that it has adopted an ineffective approach with respect to its obligation to promote competition at the registry level.”

The DOC letter is more measured but it questions why ICANN has failed to substantiate its belief that opening up the DNS to new gTLDs will actually help ICANN meet the obligations of the MOU/JPA agreements.

From the MOU Agreement
“This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction.”

To that end the DOC letter also questions the lack of the economic study and report requested by the ICANN Board 18th October, 2006 and they suggest –

”ICANN needs to complete this economic study and the results be considered by the community before new gTLDs are introduced”

Do you have a timetable for when you expect ICANN to implement this study and the associated community discussion?

Your comment makes me think that ICANN will discount the value of “against” comments that you have received, assuming that people who like the way it is have kept quite.

I understand the JPA encourages ICANN to promote competition both in the TLD and registry space. Is going from 20 or so TLDs to potentially hundreds all at once the way to do that? That concerns me. Additionally, ICANN is doing little to promote competition at the registry level with its implied renewal stance for registrars and not bidding out renewals. The Department of Justice mentioned this in its letter, and also questioned the idea that registries will invest less if they might lose the registry contract in competitive bidding. In fact, the DOJ suggested that registries will invest as much with the hope of retaining the registry in competitive bidding.

Yes the USG is represented on the Governmental Advisory Committee and the JPA signed in 2006 and which expires in September 2009 encourages ICANN to expand the gTLD space. Remember that ICANN is the some of its many parts, not simply staff or Board and so this process represents the result of discussions by many different stakeholders. We of course will take their counsel into consideration along with the other comments.

Yes there are a lot of comments that express concern about the process. But it is unlikely that those who want to see the process proceed apace after years of discussion are going to request many more changes as they may consider this will slow the implementation.

Paul Levins

Has the U.S. Commerce Department been involved at all in the process over the past three years? It seems to have serious concerns about how the process is currently set.

I’ll take it at your word that all comments received will be considered. There certainly seemed to be a lot more generally opposed comments than generally in favor comments.

The impetus to expand competition in the name space is very much part of ICANN’s mission (so over ten years old). The planning and discussion of this particular expansion commenced more than three years ago. Expansion of the gTLD space is also an objective of the Joint Project Agreement signed by the Department of Commerce. ICANN’s not ignoring concerns. There is another comment period this year and there will be conferences internationally to discuss brand issues.

There is demand: the individuals behind .Berlin, .Paris .Hamburg, .Gal, .Barcelona, .cyn and .fam will tell you that they are tired of ICANN delaying the introduction of more gTLDs. Although competition has increased markedly in the last ten years at the registrar level, the registry space is still arguably small (16) and .com, org and .net are still operated by only two companies, Verisign and PIR. This situation limits the effectiveness of overall competition and, even aside from strictly competitive issues, gives rise to concerns over the Internet community’s lack of vendor diversity.

As to the bonus structure, revenue growth is not part of the bonuses. ICANN is a not for profit organization. We are not doing this ‘for the money’. We’re doing it because the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which has in its membership the Intellectual Propoerty constituency, Commercial and business users as well as non-commercial users, put forward recommendations to the Board that this expansion proceed. Fees and charges relating to this introduction are only to recover costs. To the extent that there is more money received than required it will be held aside and the community will be consulted on how the money should be used. It will NOT go towards salaries, bonuses, planes, furs or any other wild imagining I have read about.

The bottom line is that this expansion has been part of a community effort as represented through the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Of course ICANN will listen to concerns about the expansion. It will weigh those concerns with the benefit of literally years of thought that has taken place so far on this issue and with those voices asking for the expansion to proceed.

Paul Levins
ICANN