Re: [ga] Notice of Public Comment Period re: Sponsored TLD Request for Proposals

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

AT LARGE preparations for comment on new sTLDs:

> From the Icann At Large Panel list:
>
> In view of this posting on the GA, I propose to ask the membership to
> partake in the creation of a document containing the comments from the
> icannatlarge.org.
>
> We can support this attempt with maillist, webspace and our
> participation.
>
> Please speak out on this.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Abel

Abel,

I am working on my own response to ICANN's draft RFP, and I'm happy to share
my viewpoints with others in our org.

Some initial questions:

1. Why do previous applicants who were already shafted for $50,000 for
nothing, now have to pay an additional $25,000 to submit their submissions
all over again?

2. Why the proposal to limit applications to the year 2000 applicants? Is
this arbitrary? Why shouldn't other businesses with good and competitive
plans be entitled to be considered, in the spirit of an open market?

3. In the applications for the year 2000 TLDs, there were concerns about
conflicts of interest, involving (for example) the delegation of .info to
Afilias when Ken Stubbs was at the same time both an Afilias Director and
also deeply involved with ICANN as Chairman of its Names Council. What will
happen this time round if applicants have known connections, friendships, or
associations with members of the ICANN Board who will be responsible for
choosing who is successful? Will there be any built-in restrictions to
guarantee that conflicts of interest or accusations of favouritism do not
occur this time round?

4. The whole proposal to extend the new TLDs is being done on the back of a
Proof of Concept / New TLD Evaluation Process which has not been carried
out. What assurances can ICANN give that lessons have been learned from the
previous round of TLDs, when the Evaluation is absent, and when mandatory
Registry Evaluation Reports which should have been visible 12-18 months ago
have never been released?

5. There are huge unanswered questions about the abuse of process which
definitely took place during the earlier round of New TLDs. ICANN has evaded
many of these questions, and has failed to enforce its own Agreements with
registries, while continuing to accredit registrars who abused the process
to the financial loss of general consumers. If Dan Halloran (who has
announced this RFP) is unwilling to respond to NewTLD questions for over 425
days (as has been well documented), and if the previous problems have been
left unaddressed, then how can we have confidence in the integrity of
ICANN's processes, or their ability to avoid further problems all over
again?

6. What account will ICANN take of any other businesses already up and
running, using a TLD through a different root, if ICANN decides to delegate
the same TLD? What will be the impact on those businesses?

7. What assurance will we have that the independent evaluator will not have
any previous links with ICANN - either through business association,
friendship, involvement, or other links which might result in a compromised
process?

8. There were concerns and perceptions last time round, that ICANN staff
(and associates like Louis Touton) had too much influence in the
decision-making process. Should the recommendations that are tabulated for
the Board, be put together by an independent third party?

These are just a few areas worth developing.

Yrs,

Richard H