Would throttling release of new TLDs benefit the internet?

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which represents the interests of internet users, is the latest group to consider asking ICANN to do a phased release of its new TLD program.

Although there’s still disagreement amongst the group, a third draft of a document titled “Updated ALAC advice on gTLDs” says that there are “deep concern about the possible harmful effect on Internet end-users of a single massive expansion of gTLDs;”

Among the possible resolutions:

Phase-in the introduction of new gTLDs gradually, releasing no more than 25 every three months and that each such release be comprised of at least 30% community, support-eligible, “geo-region” or IDN TLDs

The draft notes that these numbers “may be considered arbitrary values which are subject to review and consensus.”

If ALAC does finalize this communication, it will be one more group asking ICANN to be careful as it prepares to release hundreds of new TLDs.

Although this may make sense, the question of how to batch new TLDs is still open to debate and could be just as contentious as the entire new gTLD process to date.

Want to watch another aspect of the new TLD process explode?

I just finished reviewing ICANN’s draft plan to assist “needy” applicants wishing to apply for a new top level domain name.

I know the title to this post is lame, but I really can’t come up with anything better to describe this new program.

It’s really, really bad. And it will blow up in ICANN’s face.

The program is funded to allow 14 applicants for new TLDs to pay $47,000 in evaluation fees rather than the normal $185,000. It’s backed with $2M in funding from ICANN.

You’ve got to be poor, but not broke.

Let’s start with why this program doesn’t serve its intended purpose and is thus fundamentally flawed: you have to be poor but have enough money to run a registry.

So you save $138,000 on your application fee. But a properly run registry needs much, much more than that to continue as a going concern.

If you can’t afford the extra $138,000, how can you possibly answer this question:

While an applicant’s project should demonstrate some level of need as described above, the applicant must also demonstrate basic financial capability to operate an ongoing concern of the size and complexity of a proposed registry through demonstrating managerial capabilities and financial resources.

Only an idiot would donate to this program.

Although ICANN is looking forward to a winfall of over $100M from the new TLD program, it’s only allocating $2 million to this support system. That means about 14 people will get the reduced rate.

Ah, but ICANN wants to raise more money:

ICANN will work with the community plans to create opportunity for other parties to contribute to the fund. Details about the fundraising activities will be made available in 2012.

Wait a minute. ICANN is going to have many more millions in the bank after launching new TLDs yet it’s only willing to allocate $2M to this program, and it wants to ask for contributions from outside parties?

The only way this will work is if unfunded but qualified applicants are posted for individual contributions. You’d be stupid to contribute blindly and let ICANN decide which groups get the money.

Governments can’t apply.

I recall that some poorer governments wanted reduced fees. Sorry, that’s not allowed. (Not that this is a bad thing. A government that can’t afford the fees should be doing something else with its money.)

No trademarks allowed.

This is perhaps one of the more baffling provisions. You can’t apply for reduced fees if your TLD is meant to be a trademark.

Let’s use an example, .goodwill. Now, Goodwill would not qualify because it has a lot of money. But think about if Goodwill was a small upstart in a developing country. It wouldn’t qualify unless it wants to give up any trademark protection. Good luck protecting your brand down the road.

It appears the plan is not meant for .brand non-profits. It’s meant for causes, e.g. .hiv.

Every non-profit will apply.

Another problem is that everyone who has even a shot at getting a reduced fee will apply. There’s no risk. Even if you can afford the full fee, there’s a benefit to applying. If you don’t get the award you get a deferred payment plan.

This is going to piss off a lot of people.

Which will be more worthy, .hiv or .cancer? What about religious names and causes? Controversial things? Could even an application for .gay qualify?

More points will be given to applicants from developing countries and for scripts and languages that are “underserved”.

Here’s the thing: ICANN is going to have to deny some “worthy” groups the reduced fee. Some of these worthy groups will be just as worthy as others. This is going to introduce allegations of politics and favoritism. It will look really, really, bad.

I realize ICANN’s half-assed commitment to lower fees for needy applicants is a result of significant outside pressure. But I think this program is going to blow up in ICANN’s face.

Hockey great gets his namesake .com.

Former NHL great Doug Gilmour, who was inducted into the hockey hall of fame this year, has won a UDRP proceeding over the domain name DougGilmour.com.

I remember watching Gilmour play for the St. Louis Blues in the 1980s.

The registrant of the domain name said he was Gilmour “biggest fan” and that he had registered it as a fan site. He also argued that Gilmours likeness belongs to the National Hockey League and not Gilmour, which was an interesting argument to say the lease.

Yet the domain name promoted hockeyvideohighlights.com, a commercial site apparently operated by the registrant. HockeyVideoHighlights.com expired on December 11.

The panel found that the domain name was registered in bad faith and that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It will be transferred to Gilmour within the next 10 days.

An interesting case from a Texas court.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has issued a ruling stating that it has jurisdiction over ICANN in a bankruptcy case and that ICANN must stay a UDRP proceeding.

The case involves FunnyGames.com, which is in control of a receiver in a bankruptcy case. The receiver says the domain name has been appraised for $400,000.

FunnyGames.com was hit with a UDRP last month. The receiver in the case asked the court for an emergency motion forcing ICANN to stay the proceeding at World Intellectual Property Organization.

ICANN responded by arguing that it can’t stay the proceeding — only WIPO can. It told the court “ICANN does not play any role in administering or governing proceedings under the UDRP…” It also said that the court had no jurisdiction over ICANN.

The court disagreed. It said that since ICANN created UDRP and approves of arbiters, that:

It is no leap in logic to find that ICANN has the authority to stay the instant UDRP claim against Funnygames.com. The Court can draw no other inference other than that it simply has chosen not to.

The court also said it had statutory jurisdiction in this case “but by virtue of this matter being a federal equity receivership proceeding.”

[Hat tip: Bret Fausett]

Representatives ask for a delay or pilot program launch.

Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, and Howard Berman, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, have sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce asking for a delay to the new top level domain rollout.

The pair ask the Department of Commerce to answer five questions before January 5. To summarize:

1. Has the Department confirmed if ICANN is complying with the Affirmation of Commitments?
2. If there is non-compliance, what is the Department doing about it?
3. What is the Department doing to protect businesses and consumers with the rollout?
4. Have the costs to businesses and consumers been quantified?
5. What is the potential for cybersecurity threats from this expansion of new TLDs.

Goodlatte and Berman ask the Department of Commerce to “take steps necessary to delay the rollout of these new gTLDs…” If the Department determines that the expansion of TLDs should proceed, then they ask for a small pilot program.