New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 – Public Comments Summary and Analysis NEW gTLD DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK VERSION 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Sources Public Comment Postings (7 October to 22 November 2009). The full text of the comments may be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/comments‐3‐en.htm. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Since it was founded in 1998, one of ICANN’s key mandates has been to create competition in the domain name market. This includes ensuring that competition, consumer interests, and Internet DNS stability and security issues are identified and considered in TLD management decisions, including the consideration and implementation of new TLDs. The policy making process in the ICANN model is driven by people from around the world. Those discussions have involved representatives of governments, individuals, civil society, the technology community, business, and trademark lawyers. The consensus they came to, through discussions in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), one of the many groups that coordinate global policy in ICANN, was that new gTLDs were needed and could be introduced. The current work on implementation of new gTLDs has been in the study and planning stages for more than 3 years. See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new‐gtlds/. Its origin goes back even further – to the first two rounds of top‐level domain applications held in 2000 and 2003. Those rounds were used to shape the current process. In June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO policy to introduce new gTLDs and directed staff to continue to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan, continue communication with the community on the work, and provide the Board with a final version of the implementation proposals for the Board and community to approve before the new gTLD introduction process is launched. In October 2008, a Draft Applicant Guidebook, with six explanatory memoranda was released and a consultation period of 76 days was held on the first draft. An analysis of over 300 comments to the Guidebook resulted in substantial changes, reflected in the second version of the Guidebook published in February 2009. Again, there was substantial commentary reiterating previous positions and staking out new ones for consideration. This process has been iterated through additional cycles of comment to produce the third version of the Guidebook, with incorporation of public feedback and publication of new material for discussion. As a result of this process, the third draft of the Applicant Guidebook 1 New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 – Public Comments Summary and Analysis contains a number of areas which have matured in development to a point where they are essentially complete. Discussion continues on a limited number of remaining issues within the program, and these continue toward resolution. Overview of the Analysis For the comment period to the third version of the Guidebook, ICANN has followed the approach taken on comments to the previous versions and is providing here a detailed analysis of comments received. The comments were again divided into major categories and then subcategories. An analysis was written to address issues raised in the categories and subcategories. The analysis identifies commenters and provides a summary of issues with which commenters are associated, and then provides an explanation of the proposed position regarding the issues raised. Therefore, each category is divided into the following sections: • A summary of the key points made in that category • A summary where a synopsis of comments and sources is listed • Analysis, including a summary of the issues raised by that set of comments, a balancing of the issues raised by the comments, and a proposed position for moving forward. The report analyzes comments by category and balances the different proposals made. The goals of the report are to: • Analyze the comments in order to develop amendments to the Guidebook that are consonant with the meaningful input of the community, and • Demonstrate that the comments are taken seriously and carefully considered. Guidebook Analysis and Changes ICANN continues to move forward in the implementation of the new gTLD Program while balancing and addressing community concerns on specific aspects of the program. The public comment period on the third version of the applicant guidebook recently closed and work continues to proceed on the resolution of overarching issues and other program details. ICANN is publishing this analysis of comments to continue progress and the community discussion. Many of these comment areas will be the subject of consultation at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Nairobi. The next draft (version 4) of the Applicant Guidebook is expected in June 2010. GENERAL CONCERNS/OTHER I. Key Points • Supporters have argued, in general, that New gTLDs promote investment, competition, innovation and can help new businesses grow. New gTLDs may also offer greater opportunity, accessibility and diversity for users. • ICANN should proceed with the program. Applicants for New gTLDs want to see a timeline. If program suffers further delays, it will further harm ICANN’s credibility; there should also be consequences for the organization. 2 New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 – Public Comments Summary and Analysis • Critics have argued that the program does not serve the public interest, the risks outweigh the benefits and ICANN lacks sufficient public support. Some also oppose the introduction of an “unlimited” number of TLDs. • Several comments support the delay in the timeline stating more time is needed to address open (overarching) issues and minimize adverse consequences, especially in today’s economy. • Gap in timing of implementation between the IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLD should be reduced. • ICANN should consider the benefits of introducing further TLD categories. Some examples used were .brand, cultural, linguistic, municipal, geoTLDs, community TLDs. II. Comment Summary Support for New gTLD Program In support of expanding the Internet to promote investment and e‐commerce, among other things, ICANN should open the Internet to new top‐level domains and stop the continuous DAG revisions. M. Ferraro (13 Nov. 2009). A. McKinlay (17 Nov. 2009). I. Kalitka (19 Nov. 2009). B. Tippkemper (21 Nov. 2009). IH&RA (21 Nov. 2009). RRIH (21 Nov. 2009). Nokia (22 Nov. 2009). M. Neylon (22 Nov. 2009). C. von Veltheim (22 Nov. 2009). ICANN should be moving ahead with new gTLDs; we are close to the finishing line for resolving the overarching issues and maintaining the huge success of the Internet and its openness and constant adoption to users’ needs must not be risked. dotZON (18 Nov. 2009). HOTEL (22 Nov. 2009). EuroDNS (23 Nov. 2009). dotECO (22 Nov. 2009). E. Pruis (23 Nov. 2009). Demand Media (22 Nov. 2009). Competition in new gTLDs should be open and foster innovation. P. Mevzek (22 Nov. 2009). Moving ahead to open new gTLDs without further delays will help small businesses grow and compete better. P. Jacxsens (13 Nov. 2009). K. Nahigian (13 Nov. 2009). A. Bell (13 Nov. 2009). A. Toronto (13 Nov. 2009). J. Poelman (13 Nov. 2009). M. Lopez (13 Nov. 2009). R. Seidel (13 Nov. 2009). G. Hale (16 Nov. 2009). A. McNeill (17 Nov. 2009). B. Couture (17 Nov. 2009). M. Boese (17 Nov. 2009). F. Hagale (18 Nov. 2009). S. Storan (18 Nov. 2009). J. Masri‐Nahigian (19 Nov. 2009). R. Gerstemeier (19 Nov. 2009). M. Crow (19 Nov. 2009). E. Letchworth (19 Nov. 2009). C. Livingston (19 Nov. 2009). H. Addington (19 Nov. 2009). AmericaSpeakOn.org (19 Nov. 2009). N. Carosella (19 Nov. 2009). G. Houston (20 Nov. 2009). M. Barnes (20 Nov. 2009). D. Motley (20 Nov. 2009). C. Perrone (20 Nov. 2009). New TLDs offer greater Internet organization, opportunities, accessibility, diversity and individuality for users at all levels. C. Daly (17 Nov. 2009). ICANN should solicit more diverse corporate participation to address the needs of corporations as registrants and TLD applicants. The lack of corporate participation might be the result of companies not being aware of the whole gTLD process. Nokia (22 Nov. 2009). The extensive drafting, revisions and reviews producing the current DAG have resulted in an equitable and sensible process for selecting TLDs and registry operators. The DAG Modules are largely complete. R. Tindal (23 Nov. 2009). Refunds for rejected applications (sec. 6.3.) It seems that to be accepted an applicant must surrender all his rights. There is no refund policy in cases where the application is rejected based on non‐applicant fault, and there is no right to complain or to sue ICANN. A. Sozonov (Module 6, 23 Nov. 2009). S. Subbiah (Module 6, 23 Nov. 2009). 3 New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 – Public Comments Summary and Analysis Opposition to New gTLD Program Program does not serve public interest, and risks outweigh benefits The new gTLD program poses substantial risks to both consumers and businesses that outweigh any potential benefits. NCTA is concerned that the new gTLD program will be approved and implemented without full consideration of the potential risks that may result from the program. The case has not been made for a wholesale, widespread potential deluge of new gTLDs. Assuming there is a documented need for them, measured steps should be taken to expand the top‐level domain name space market. NCTA (22 Nov. 2009). DIFO (21 Nov. 2009). ICANN lacks sufficient public support for the new gTLD program. G. Kirikos (22 Nov. 2009). Microsoft restates its opposition to introduction of an unlimited number of new ASCII gTLDs. Microsoft (23 Nov. 2008). Timeline/ Models Launch timing It is a positive development that ICANN will no longer announce arbitrary expected launch dates for new gTLDs. Time needs to be taken for further consideration of unresolved issues and to minimize possible adverse consequences, especially given the current world economic situation.