ICANN asks for feedback on Expressions of Interest for new TLDs.

As I’ve reported before, ICANN is exploring accepting “expressions of interest” for new top level domain names. This would allow applicants to put their hat in the ring for new TLDs and give the internet community an idea of the scale and complexity we’re dealing with.

In principle, it sounds like a good idea. The devil will be in the details.

ICANN just opened up a comment period to provide guidance on the “Expressions of Interest” idea. The deadline to submit comments that will be considered by the board at its December meeting is November 27.

Here is the feedback I just submitted:

I like the idea of “Expressions of Interest” for new top level domain names. If properly implemented, it will give us an idea of the scale and complexity we’re dealing with for new TLDs. It will also help us understand particular string contention issues that may not have been anticipated in the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), or at least provide specific examples to debate. I wish to comment on a few aspects of the idea:

1. There must be an incentive for companies to participate. My preferred incentive is to require companies to participate in the EOI if they want to apply for the TLD. Otherwise, the EOI will not provide an accurate estimate of interest.

2. There must be a penalty for companies that don’t follow through with applying for the TLD that they submit an EOI for. My preferred penalty is to require a steep, non-refundable fee to submit an EOI. I understand that some companies may be wary to pay a significant amount when there is no guarantee that new TLDs will go forward. That’s a risk they might just have to take.

The fee should be per TLD applied for; otherwise one applicant may file for a number of TLDs to “scare off” competition.

3. ICANN should understand that the level of applications under EOI does not indicate economic demand for new TLDs from registrants. It only indicates a level of demand from entrepreneurs wishing to release new TLDs.

A number of people have called for the economic studies on new TLDs to be carried out. But let’s be honest, we can look at previous new TLD rounds to see the level of demand for new TLDs. It’s relatively low. I’d rather ICANN not waste any more money paying an economics professor to write “whitewash” reports on the economic demand and benefits for new TLDs.

4. With regards to the question on if a company can get a refund if the DAG changes, this is a tough question. There must be some level of significant change to allow a company to back out, and it must be clearly defined. Otherwise there will be a loophole which will negate the entire benefit of the EOI. Again, this is a risk companies will just have to take. Everyone entering the ICANN process for new TLDs knew there as risk it would either be significantly delayed or may never happen, so it’s just part of the risk equation.

Letter insinuates that CADNA does not take a balanced approach to intellectual property rights.

The ICANN IP Constituency is distancing itself from the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA).

In a letter to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom, J. Scott Evans, President of the Intellectual Property Constituency, referred to a recent discussion in which CADNA was referred to as being a member of the constituency.

During our presentation, Mike Silba made a reference to the recent Congressional hearings held on new gTLDs. Specifically, Mike stated that “one of your members” had instigated these hearings and was the only party to file negative comments on the Affirmation of Commitments that ICANN recently signed with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Later that same day, Nick Wood, a representative of IPC member Marques, quered Mike about his comment. Mike explained that he was referring to the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) in his comments during the IPC meeting.

I want to clarifiy for the record that CADNA is not now nor has it ever been a member of the IPC. Additionally, I want you and the rest of the Board to know that Yahoo! resigned from CADNA in January 2008, shortly after I joined the company. The IPC has historically worked very hard to present a balanced view of IP protection in the DNS and, for this reason, I felt compelled to correct the public record and to ensure that the other Board members present at the meeting receive this information.

Note the explanation for how the IP constituency is different from CADNA: it tries to take a balanced approach. Apparently CADNA does not.

Quick news updates before the weekend.

It’s the Friday before Halloween and there’s a lot of domain news to report. I’ll be taking off early today to go to my daughter’s Halloween school carnival (she’s dressing up as a Flamingo), so here’s a condensed version of all the news that’s fit to print.

IDN TLDs are coming! ICANN’s board has approved the fast track IDN country code domain name process. Here’s what you need to know:

1. These are the first top level domain names to allow non-Latin characters at the top level (many allow second level non-Latin characters already).

2. This only applies to a limited number of new country code domain names. Probably 20-30.

3. Some countries may give existing ccTLD holders rights to the new IDN ccTLD, but not all.

4. This will not affect existing gTLD domain names, such as .com.

ComWired has released a new user interface. ComWired, which lets you send internet traffic to different destinations based on the visitor’s geo location, has released an improved user interface. Check it out.

When will Moniker synchronize its whois data reminders? Really, it’s annoying getting a whois accuracy reminder every couple days. Why can’t it send out one a year like the other registrars?

It’s Extended Auction time. Check out both the extended Rick Latona auction and Moniker auction (over at Snapnames).

Fill out survey to (hopefully) shape ICANN priorities.

ICANN has opened a survey listing a couple dozen priorities and asking stakeholders to rank each priority as Low, High, or Very High. Examples of priorities include:

-The introduction of new top level domain names
-Introduction of internationalized domain names
-Security concerns and DNSSEC
-ICANN complying/meeting Affirmation of Commitments
-Compliance of existing contracts

I’m not sure how seriously ICANN will take this unscientific survey, but I recommend filling it out nonetheless. It only takes a couple minutes. If you’re concerned that ICANN is focusing too much energy on bringing out new top level domain names and not enough on registrar compliance, make your voice heard. (I bring up this example because a new TLD promoter has already started asking people on Twitter to fill out the survey with a priority to new top level domains. Of course, you should go with whatever you care about most.)

Frustration, anger greets session on new top level domain names.

In the opening session on new gTLDs at ICANN’s meeting in Seoul, frustrations boiled over after it became apparent the timeline for introduction of new top level domain names has slipped.

Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President at ICANN, led the session. The transcript tells an ugly tale. Pritz didn’t talk about specific dates, but basically said things would be slowed down to get it right. One example:

The RSSAC are considering the reports that have been delivered and will advise the board on next steps there. Economic analyses we’re engaged with, in discussions with economists that we expect to retain. We expect a first delivery of materials in — as early as December, and then the follow-on report in the first quarter or first half of next year.

When the floor was opened up for questions, Minds+Machines’ Antony Van Couvering was the first to the mic:

>>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: Thank you, Kurt. And thank you for the 50 explanatory memos, the 400 days of public comments, the 580 articles and so on.

So I have done the math. I think everyone here can do it, too. Andwhat that math says to me is that there is no application period before the end of the summer, and probably after that.

>>KURT PRITZ: Summer in which hemisphere?

>>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: Yes, exactly. Let us say, then, July, August, September, October in any hemisphere….

Frustration became evident as person after person came to the mic to discuss the costs they are experiencing with delays. Here are a few examples:

Paul Stahura, eNom: We need new gTLDs or the DNS risks losing its relevance and ICANN simply devolving into a perpetual debating society. We need new gTLDs to bring lower prices, better names, more diverse services, and innovative features to consumers. We need them now, or those of us who want to bring these benefits to consumers will wither on the vine, and as we all know, some of you in this room wish this to happen.

Elaine Pruis, Minds+Machines: Yesterday, I heard of a draft applicant guidebook 4, maybe a 5, maybe a 6. And I couldn’t help but think of Buzz Lightyear. And I want a tee shirt that says, “To infinity and beyond.” Not really. I want a tee shirt that says, “Final applicant guidebook.”

John Toland, TLD Assets: My clients are concerned that the timetable hasn’t slipped, but has been abandoned. So I would be seeking to hear from yourself — this is a question — a clear reaffirmation that the new gTLDs are going to be introduced. So could you answer that with a “yes”? (After back and forth with Pritz, Toland took it as a ‘yes’)

Bret Fausett, Attorney: You know, there are people who are burning money trying to build businesses on this ICANN platform, and it’s very difficult when you don’t know what the target is. And, you know, if it’s 2011, if it’s 2012, people are going to be really disappointed to hear that, but they’d rather hear that.

And, you know, don’t be worried about making people disappointed, because predictability and planning are much more important than making people happy.

Bhavin Turakhia, Directi: Every year of delay means people change. People in the governments changing, employees and staff and private equity payers are changing, staff has to be reeducated. Anywhere between 70 to 100 potential applicants exist today, and people who I talk to speak of a couple hundred applications. You’re looking at a staff of three to six dedicated people in each of these companies. That represents anywhere between 45 to $50 million per annum of staff cost. You add all of this up, add interest cost and you’re looking at about $100 million outside of the 92 that your cost consideration sheet talks about, that is being spent for every year of delay in this process.

Which means the ecosystem is going to have to generate an additional $100 million every year that this process is delayed. So, you know, I urge you, if you take a look at this room, you know, this is probably — I’ve been to several ICANN meetings — this is probably, you know, the most packed I have seen any session in an ICANN meeting, close to 400, 500 people here at a modest, $300 an hour. This room has spent $250,000 in this session to hear you say that the process is getting delayed.