Expressions of Interest, wisps of smoke, billions for defense and peasants
I had the pleasure of being a panelist in a session on the proposal for an Expressions of Interest (EOI) for the new gTLD program. I want to briefly reiterate my view on the EOI.
In computer science I learned that every problem could be “solved’ by adding a level of indirection - always with a cost of processing time and overhead. In ICANN I have learned that there are those who approach a process problem with Yet Another Process (YAP for short). ICANN has a process, the new gTLD process, that cannot meet its schedule due to any number of legitimate and/or illegitimate reasons. It is therefore in the process of creating a YAP, the EOI, that is believed by some to fix the problems of the new gTLD process.
Since the schedule for new gTLDs is subject to a continuous and indefinitely large slippage, those who came early to the dance are having trouble sustaining their efforts, including staff, offices and trips to all the relevant meetings. In order to solve the problem of a lingering gTLD process, a self selected group formed itself and produced a recommendation that the Board accepted. The ICANN Staff was then asked by the Board to investigate the idea and scope out an implementation for public comment. The staff took the task on with relish and produced the model currently being discussed and perhaps decided upon.
The resulting EOI is essentially a marketing gimmick, intended to help those aspiring to to apply for a new gTLD to raise funds to continue their participation in the new gTLD waiting game. What I find especially clever about the EOI is that the program has been disguised as a investigation for data that would resolve some of the overarching issues like the ability of the DNS root to scale and threats to trademarks. Yet there are many people who agree that the EOI will solve several problems including:
- The Wisps of Smoke: that is will there be so many new gTLDS that with all the other major things happening to the DNS line DNSSEC and IPv6 (a more likely maybe then in the past, maybe) it will just fail.
- Billions for Defense: that is the claims made by trademark holders that have convinced governments that the new gTLD program will bankrupt them and perhaps even cause their countries to suffer another dip in the economy.
One other concern that has figured prominently in the EOI discussion has to do with what the communications plan should include, when it should occur and who it should address. I call this topic “The Peasants.”
Briefly, I believe that the EOI will delay the start of the round of gTLDs by at least an additional 6 months without solving any questions. Additionally I think it will exacerbate the financial difficulties for possible applicants from development regions and from the non profit sector.
Wisps of Smoke
Whether the number is as low as 20, as was argued during the panel discussion by one contributor at the microphone, or as high as 10’s of thousands, most believe that there is a maximum to the number of new TLDs that may be added to the DNS before there are problems - that is wisps of smoke. No one agrees on what this number is and there is no measure by which this number can be predicted with any reliability. Because of this, however, the number of gTLD enumerated by the EOI is irrelevant - some will argue that any number is too many. Just because ICANN collects data, doesn’t mean people will agree on what that data means.
The method by which new TLDS will be inserted in the root, however, provides the real solution. It is unlikely that more then a few TLDs per day will ever be added to the root - the operational capacity of the program will determine that. At such a gradual rate, with careful monitoring, the experts who maintain the DNS root systems will be able to see any danger long before they cause wisps of smoke. At any such point they will be able to stop adding names, assess the problem and fix the system, before continuing on with adding more TLDs to the root. It really is the only way.
Billions for Defensive Registrations
The trademark lobbyists within ICANN and within the governments of the world have argued that new gTLDs may cost unlimited sums in defensive registrations. As a basis they point out the enormous sums paid today to protect their current portfolios. On the other hand various studies show that the rate of trademark abuse is rather low.
- One spends billions on defense
- One indicates that billions for defense is unnecessary
This is not unusual, the fear of attack is often much greater then the reality that attacks will occur, so most often more is spent on defense then the threat ever warrants. The main point, however, is that facts do not have any bearing on how much will be spent on defensive registrations - no mater how many new TLDS are created. Again, ICANN may collect data, but there will be no agreement on what the data means.
The Peasants
A first step for the EOI concerns a 4 month communication period during which the details of the application guidelines are explained to possible applicants around the world. Some feel that this communications period is unnecessary since anyone who really needs to know about the eventual opening of a new gTLD round, already knows about it. As one commentator put it: Is it really necessary to reach every peasant in the world to tell them about the new gTLD program. And while the “reach every peasant” standard is a bit stiff, it certainly seems that the communications should attempt to reach every country where there is a possible gTLD market. In any case the gTLD program itself requires a communication period of 4 months, and the reasonable expectation is that the EOI should be preceded by that communications period.
One of the primary concerns with the EOI is when does one start it. To be useful as a marketing tool it must be done as soon as possible. To be fair to those who have to decide whether they can make a reasonable application, all of the issues, especially the overarching issues must be resolved. That is, what can the communications period communicate other then the state of the application guidebook. But is it fair to communicate anything other then the guidelines contained in the final version of the guidebook?
This leads me to wonder, why do an EOI? Once the Final Application Guidebook is released, won’t it be time to start the new gTLD round?
The harm that would be done
Unfortunately, not only will it not help in resolving any of the issues it is intended to resolve nor quicken the arrival of the start date of the new gTLD program, the EOI will exacerbate the inequities in the new gTLD process with regard to developing countries and non profit organizations.
The price tag for new registries is difficult for many, and despite the GAC’s repeated requests that there be variable pricing, the price is still fixed for all customers. Despite some claims to the contrary, if one does a common sense investigation of labor costs and real estate prices in developing countries and investigates the business models of ccTLDs, it is clear that the fee may be the largest expense for a new IDN gTLD in a developing region. This is especially the case where an IDN gTLD that is established for cultural reasons will begin slowly and grow over the years as its market develops. The price is unfair and will be a barrier to market entry in developing regions.
The EOI makes it worse. By requiring a prospective new registry to come up with 55,000 USD a year before the registry actually needs to be formed and a year before an already excessive fee will be required, it has made the business proposition for the enterprise in the developing nation almost impossible. One wonders where the small, barely funded future registry is going to get this sum a year before the business can hope to start up. They would be forced into the execution of a business plan a year earlier then necessary, something that would make it impossible for them to ever execute a plan.
And all this just to help those western based (all US and Europe) entrepreneurs who moved prematurely because their insider status blinded them to the ICANN community’s ability to delay the introduction for a very long time. To find ICANN considering such a development-unfriendly process, where once again the developing world is hurt to the advantage of the developed world, while sharing a conference center with an African Development Conference is sad, to say the least.
Postscript
I very much hope that the EOI is voted down on Friday 12 March 2010. I think that this is the only correct decision the Board can make.
However, if the EOI is not voted down, there is one recommendation made by the GNSO but excluded by the Implementation team, because it was too hard implement, that should be added to the EOI process. The GNSO had recommended that applicants in a contention set be given a chance to change the string being applied for so that they could all succeed in getting a new gTLD. For example if two applicants apply for .berry, they could opt to change the strings when it came time to apply to . raspberry and .lingonberry. There would have to be limitations, e.g. it could not be changed to a string that would put it into another contention set, but this process could eliminate some of the need for expensive auctions.
The addition of this option is not enough in itself to make the EOI worth doing. But if we have an EOI, at least it could be used to fix one deficiency in the current application process.
