[ga] New gTLD Selection Criteria: A proposal

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus far we have had two major rounds of gTLD
selections, the year 2000 round for unsponsored gTLDs
that would operate on the basis of a contract with
ICANN, and the round for sponsored gTLDs that would
operate on a contract-basis with ICANN.  

My proposal:  the next round should be for gTLDs that
will not operate on the basis of a contract with
ICANN, but rather on the basis of RFC 1591.  It will
be at the discretion of the sponsoring organization to
decide whether it is warranted to enter into an MOU
with ICANN.

The rationale:  this system has been proven to be
workable.  ICANN has sufficient revenues and does not
require additional funding streams which is all that a
contract really provides -- ICANN's laissez-faire
attitude toward the rest of the contract details,
exemplified by the ongoing failure to address
compliance issues, makes it clear that the balance of
contract language is only there to adorn a funding
vehicle.

Without a contract regime to which the sponsoring
organizations must adhere there is less processing
time involved for ICANN which translates into lower
costs and thus lower application fees -- that would
serve to open up possibilities for the Civil Society
segment, among others, that have looked askance at the
fee level involved in the earlier rounds.

ICANN should, in theory, be able to function as a
coordinator.  It does not have to be a contract
manager, and thus far the mere existence of contracts
has led to significant litigation costs as well as to
a massive drain on human resources just to settle
contractual issues.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com