[governance] Can Icann really be necessary?

[Asif Kabani]

Dear Imran and Friends,

The question raised by my Friends here is very relevant,  I am here sharing
some 9 points here to understand it better, remember

Still, the entire TLD process is complicated and difficult to understand.
We’ve been sucked down the rabbit hole of ICANN and the gTLD application
process in the past, and it isn’t something we recommend for the faint of
heart.

We read (or at least skimmed) the 352-page *New gTLD Applicant
Guidebook*<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-30may11-en.pdf>
[PDF]
to get to the bottom of what the gTLD process is, how much it costs, and
ultimately, why regular users should care.
Finally, I have also put some reading material for friends whom are new and
need to understand the history and future development, Imran put some light
on your particular concerns after this email.


Again thanks & Regards


Asif Kabani



Historically, only 22 general use-approved TLDs, which include .com, .org,
.net and a host of others, have existed across the web. A number of country
code top-level domains (like .me and .ly) also exist and throughout the
years, many individuals not from those countries have used those domains to
give their domain or brand a more memorable (or in some cases, shorter) URL.

The promise of more generic TLDs is immense because it could conceivably
open up new domain extensions and opportunities for a wider variety of
brands, organizations and services.

**

1. How Many New TLDs Will Be Issued?
------------------------------

ICANN has said between 300 and 1,000 new
gTLDs<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110619_new_top_level_domains_are_approved_by_icann/>
could
be created per year under the new program.

Still, this number assumes ICANN can process and deal with that many
applications in a timely matter. Thousands of applications could take years
to evaluate and process.

ICANN says <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/strategy-faq.htm> it is
limiting the first batch to 500 applications and subsequent batches — or
rounds — will be limited to 400 applications.
------------------------------
 2. What Is the Application Period?
------------------------------

Applications will be accepted for new TLDs between January 12, 2012 and
April 12, 2012. This will be for the first round — or batch. Subsequent
application periods will become available in the future.
------------------------------
 3. How Much Will Registration Cost?
------------------------------

The evaluation fee from prospective applicants is $185,000. According to
the *gTLD Applicant Guidebook,* a $5,000 deposit is required “at the time
the user requests an application slot within TAS, and a payment of the
remaining $180,000 submitted with the full application.”

This is just to start the evaluation process. Additional fees may be
required during the course of the application review process, and this fee
doesn’t include additional infrastructure fees that a gTLD may generate.
------------------------------
 4. How Long Will the Evaluation Process Take?
------------------------------

ICANN estimates that the evaluation process could be as short as nine months
or as long as twenty months, depending on the application, intended usage
and other issues.

ICANN expects the first new gTLDs to appear within the year, but it’s likely
going to be 2013 before end users see the new domains in action.
------------------------------
 5. What Happens if Two Entities Apply for the Same gTLD?
------------------------------

It depends on the timeline. If one of the users has already completed
process before another party has applied, the TLD will be delegated on a
first-come, first-serve basis.

If neither applicant has completed the process, ICANN has a more detailed
resolution process in place. The applicants will be given points in four
different categories. The applicant that amasses the most points, based on
this set of criteria, will win the domain. In the even of a tie in points,
an auction will take place and the TLD will go to the highest bidder.

Additionally, community-based applications (that is, applications from an
organization or entity and not a specific brand or company) will have the
opportunity to have a priority evaluation in this process.

ICANN will notify applicants who are part of a contention set. Applicants
can decide to try to reach their own resolution together (for instance, a
compromise might be able to be reached for a more generic TLD like “soda” or
“pizza”).
------------------------------
 6. What About Trademarks?
------------------------------

This is going to be a very, very tricky situation for ICANN to mitigate.
Although users do not need to own a Trademark to apply for a new TLD, the
evaluation review will take any existing trademarks (from all over the
world) into account when looking at the application.

Users cannot “reserve” a TLD of a trademarked name, they must go through the
same process as everyone else. In addition to checking for trademarked names
for a TLD, ICANN will also look at similar names that may be trademarked or
might be confusing.

Additionally, trademark owners or other interested parties can file an
objection during the evaluation process.
------------------------------
 7. How Much Does Filing an Objection Cost?
------------------------------

The *Applicant Guidebook* is still just a draft, so we don’t have the final
figures; but it will cost the thousands of dollars to file an objection —
not including any additional mediation or court costs.

One of the reasons that ICANN is charging so much for its evaluation fees is
that it is doing lots of due diligence to try to settle the feasibility of a
TLD before granting it to an organization. Moreover, ICANN wants to prevent
domain squatters from grabbing TLDs.
------------------------------
 8. If I Get a New TLD, Do I Have to Let My Competitors Use It?
------------------------------

Once a new TLD is granted, the owner essentially becomes a registrar. That
means that if he or she wants to let anyone willing to pay a registration
fee get their own domain on that TLD, they can. Alternatively, the owner
could limit the use of the domain to certain entities or prevent people
without certain qualifications from gaining access to the TLD.
------------------------------
 9. Will This Have Any Real Impact on My Life as a Web User or a Brand?
------------------------------

Not in the immediate future. However, it’s important to remember that it
took *years* for the current TLD structure to become a viable and affordable
strategy for individuals and non-Fortune 100 companies.

Twenty years ago, it wasn’t common for brands, small businesses or
individuals to have their own domains. Today, a staggering number of
registrars exist. It took a long time for the TLD market as we know it today
to really start to open up.

I bought my first domain name in 1999, I think I paid $45 for registration
that first year. Prior to 1995 or so, domain registration was a
multi-hundred or multi-thousand dollar investment. I now pay $8 or $9 for a
.com or .net domain, and that includes private registration.

It will take time for the process and oversight aspect of the new gTLD
policies to be worked out and automated. However, we expect that
community-driven TLDs for things like .music, .sports and .film become more
available in the future.

Yes, actually owning a customized TLD, like .google or .apple or .facebook
might be something that only large corporations or government entities can
afford to do, but with time, we expect that even that process will start to
change, just as they did in the .com and .net space.

On 25 June 2011 23:25, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Asif
> >Firstly, thank you to all for the contributions, I would like to support,
> Imran and Ivar point of view of the subject.
>
> Thanks for you support.
>
> Would you please share your thoughts on the potential usage of new gTLD's
> and estimation about maximum number of domain names registered annually with
> gTLD of trademark/brand name specific.
>
> (Keeping in mind that it is not a case of current ccTLD who allow the
> alternate usage e.g. .tv is being used as television channel).
>
> >This discuss(ion) must in long should focus on the key critical issues in
> Internet Governance, Again thanks.
> Yes, I think this discussion is important because it is related to the
> Internet Community. A common user may be affected with negative or positive
> outcomes. We may focus mainly on the non-commercial name-space, however,
> little bit review on policy for the commercial ones to address the question
> that is this program prepared to accommodate richest organizations only?).
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:34 PKT Asif Kabani wrote:
>
> >Greetings All Friends,
> >
> >Firstly, thank you to all for the contributions, I would like to support,
> >Imran and Ivar point of view of the subject. This discuss must in long
> >should focus on the key critical issues in Internet Governance, Again
> thanks
> >
> >Asif Kabani
> >Fellow, Diplo and IGF, Geneva
> >Global Member, ISOC
> >
> >
> >
> >On 25 June 2011 16:34, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  Dear(s) Ivar, Coordinators and all IGC CS Members,****
> >>
> >> In fact ICANN has become an organization on which the Internet Community
> >> depends on.****
> >>
> >> Referred article seems the biased response.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> >I don't agree with all of the arguments stated, but I find it is good
> that
> >> there's social pressure for the app fee to be lower. This way, when it
> can
> >> be lowered (if ever), it's guaranteed we'll have some forces (including
> in
> >> CS) pushing for that.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> However, as you asked for the influence of the Civil Society for the
> >> reduction of the Application fee to new gTLDs. It’s a good Idea to
> invite
> >> the CS support, however, this is a forum of Multi Stakeholders’ and
> >> Application fee does not matter for those members who may belongs to or
> >> representing to the big profitable companies, like VeriSign, IBM, Apple,
> >> Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Yahoo or Google etc. who would be ready to pay
> any
> >> cost to reserve the namespace that may represent their Trademark or
> Brand
> >> Name more better.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Even after getting the new gTLD registry as the namespace of their
> brands,
> >> who will allow others to register the second level domain name? for
> example
> >> “anything.ibm”, “other-OS-is-better.microsoft”,
> excellent-brand-is-apple.ibm
> >> or even igc-cs.verisign or hotels.varisign? Even if they allow only to
> the
> >> relevant business partners or clients, imagine what will be the cost per
> >> domain (just to adjust the recovery of the expenses + huge application
> fee)?
> >> Comparing the existing example to today that anyone can register .com
> .net
> >> with $6.99 to $35 and ccTLDs from $9 to $120. After all this cost will
> be
> >> transferred to the end users.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> So, do you think its uniform policy to facilitate the Internet Community
> >> members or common internet user or just to facilitate the International
> >> brands owners for their own commercial business growth?****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> So, we have to work hard and quick to oppose or extended support ICANN’s
> >> JSA WG proposal submitted to the ICANN’s board for the discount offer of
> 76%
> >> (of $186,000) for the developing economies. None of the non-for-profit
> (and
> >> not supported with huge-funding) organization belonging to developing
> >> countries is capable to pay US$44K + Registry Setup+ Insurance
> Guarantees+
> >> Hiring Technical Resources.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I would suggest creating a new discussion thread and inviting CS Support
> >> through a relevant subject for example:****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> i.        “Campaign to reduce gTLD Application Fee for Non-Commercial
> >> namespace”, or****
> >>
> >> ii.       “Categorize Commercial and Non-Commercial gTLDs”, or****
> >>
> >> iii        “Let the DE participate in new gTLD Program”
> DE=Developing
> >> Economies****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> If you agree to do this, we can share some thoughts and experience and
> >> being a member of IGC Strategy WG, I vote and request to develop a
> common
> >> IGC strategy to support your idea with condenses. Subject title
> modification
> >> is being proposed to bring more people into the information sharing and
> to
> >> invite inter CS comments to work together and for a greater positive
> >> influence to a common initiative.****
> >>
> >>
> >> Your prompt reply and review comments will be highly appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanking you
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Imran Ahmed Shah
> >>
> >> Founder & Executive Member****
> >>
> >> Urdu Internet Society (UISoc)****
> >>
> >> Internet Governance of Pakistan (IGFPAK)****
> >>
> >> email: imran at uisoc.org****
> >>
> >> Cell: +92-300-4130617
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* Ivar A. M. Hartmann <ivarhartmann at gmail.com>
> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> *Sent:* Sat, 25 June, 2011 3:57:08
> >> *Subject:* [governance] Can Icann really be necessary?
> >>
> >> Some people don't really understand what it means to "be accountable to
> >> everyone and no one" =)
> >> I don't agree with all of the arguments stated, but I find it is good
> that
> >> there's social pressure for the app fee to be lower. This way, when it
> can
> >> be lowered (if ever), it's guaranteed we'll have some forces (including
> in
> >> CS) pushing for that.
> >> Best, Ivar
> >>
> >>
> >> (via Berkman Buzz)
> >> Can Icann really be necessary?
> >>
> >> It's a question worth asking as the body that oversees internet domain
> >> names will now permit any suffix you want – at a price
> >>
> >>    -
> >>       -
> >>       - Share12<
> http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&t=Can%20Icann%20really%20be%20necessary%3F%20%7C%20Dan%20Gillmor%20%7C%20Comment%20is%20free%20%7C%20guardian.co.uk&src=sp
> >
> >>       -
> >>       <
> http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=>
> reddit
> >>       this<
> http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=
> >
> >>    - Comments (27)<
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#start-of-comments
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>    -  [image: Dan Gillmor] <
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor>
> >>    -
> >>       -  Dan Gillmor <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor>
> >>       - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Thursday 23 June
> 2011
> >>       18.00 BST
> >>       - Article history<
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#history-link-box
> >
> >>
> >>  [image: icann vote]
> >> Icann board members vote in a plan to expand the number of possible
> domain
> >> endings, currently limited to just 22. Photograph: Roslan
> Rahman/AFP/Getty
> >> Images
> >>
> >> Are you ready for .xxx, .coke and .insertyournamehere? You'd better get
> >> ready, because an organisation with significant authority and scant
> >> accountability says you must<
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/internet-domain-wave-new-suffixes
> >
> >> .
> >>
> >> That organisation is Icann: the Internet<
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet>Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers. It supervises the naming system
> >> for internet domains. With a budget north of $60m, Icann's board members
> and
> >> staff – who strike me as well-meaning, if too often unwise, in their
> actions
> >> – have embedded their work into the DNA of modern cyberspace. One would
> >> expect no less from an enterprise that can essentially tax the internet
> and
> >> is simultaneously accountable to everyone and no one.
> >>
> >> Like Icann's operations, its rules are complex. The organisation's key
> >> role, boiled down to the basics, is to oversee the domain name system
> (DNS)
> >> – a role that gives Icann the authority to decide what new domain-name
> >> suffixes may exist, and who can sell and administer them. The best known
> >> "top level" domain suffixes, at least in the US, are .com, .org and
> .edu; they
> >> are among 22 generic suffixes<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains>,
> >> along with about 250 country-level domains such as .uk, (United
> Kingdom),
> >> .de (Germany) .and cn (China).
> >>
> >> Two recent Icann initiatives highlight its reach. The first was the
> >> approval earlier this year<
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/222793/icann_approves_xxx_domain_for_adult_entertainment_industry.html>of
> the .xxx domain, intended to be a red-light zone for cyberspace. The
> >> other, announced just this week<
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/icann-domains-expansion-annnounced
> >,
> >> is a plan to let people and enterprises create domain names of any kind
> –
> >> for example, .Apple or .CocaCola or .treehugger – reflecting their
> >> trademarks or specific interests.
> >>
> >> Contrary to Icann's rationalisations (pdf)<
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf>,
> >> .xxx is a terrible idea. Should it succeed, it will enrich its
> promoters.
> >> But it will also likely lead, should the domain actually be adopted
> widely,
> >> to widespread censorship and manipulation. Governments are keen to
> restrict
> >> access to what they consider to be pornography or block it altogether;
> look
> >> for laws requiring adult sites to use the .xxx domain, so they can be
> more
> >> easily fenced in – or out. India has already announced<
> http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-03-24/news/29181495_1_new-domain-internet-corporation-websites>it
> will block .xxx entirely.
> >>
> >> I hope this wretched move fails for practical reasons. Adult content
> >> providers possessing common sense will hesitate to move their operations
> >> into a censor-friendly zone of this kind. Indeed, the Free Speech
> >> Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, is urging<
> http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/FSC-Launches-Anti-XXX-Campaign-Just-Say-NO-430172.html>its
> members to boycott .xxx and stick with the tried and true .com suffix
> >> that most of them already use.
> >>
> >> The success of .com helps explain why the latest Icann move, expanding
> the
> >> domain system in potentially infinite ways, is at best problematic. It's
> not
> >> entirely misguided, however. In principle, the idea is inoffensive; why
> not
> >> have internet addresses that fully match reality and might (repeat:
> might)
> >> be more secure under certain circumstances? And why would a company with
> a
> >> valuable trademark *not* want to reserve a domain suffix reflecting its
> >> trademark?
> >>
> >> Because, as noted, the current system isn't all that broken. Trademark
> >> disputes already get resolved in the .com world with laws and rules of
> >> various kinds. So, who wins by inviting every enterprise with a
> trademark or
> >> valuable name to register with multiple domain suffixes? The registrars
> win,
> >> of course, and so does the organisation that decides who can be a
> registrar;
> >> that would be Icann, which, in effect, taxes the registrars based on how
> >> many people they sign up for domains.
> >>
> >> Speaking of fees, if you want one of the new domain suffixes and are not
> a
> >> wealthy individual or company, get ready to put a major dent in your
> bank
> >> balance. The Icann application alone will be $185,000, with an annual
> fee of
> >> $25,000. Who sets this fee? Why, Icann, of course. Is it reasonable?
> Icann
> >> says it is. Why is it reasonable? Because Icann says, based on evidence
> that
> >> is less than persuasive, that it needs the money for things like legal
> >> costs. So much for small business registrations, much less domains for
> >> individuals with relatively common last names – how about
> >> .JohnSmithWhoWasBornInDallasOnMay51983? – which want to be as unique in
> >> their domain name as they are in the real world.
> >>
> >> Esther Dyson, former board chair at Icann (and a friend), told NPR she
> >> considered the new domains "a useless market"<
> http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137308306/not-just-dot-com-but-dot-yournamehere
> >.
> >> She is right, but I'd go further: Icann itself is unneeded, or should be
> >> made to be so. Clearly, it would be unworkable to simply pull the plug
> on
> >> Icann, because it has become a key link in the digital chain. But the
> >> internet community should be working on a bypass, not controlled in any
> way
> >> by governments, that is both secure and robust.
> >>
> >> A partial bypass already exists for end users. It's called Google –
> though
> >> this also applies to Bing and other search engines. Internet users are
> >> learning that it's easier, almost always with better results, to type
> the
> >> name of the enterprise they're searching for into the browser's search
> bar
> >> than to guess at a domain name and type that guess into the address bar.
> >> Google isn't the DNS, but its method suggests new approaches. To that
> end,
> >> some technologists have suggested creating a DNS overlay, operated in a
> >> peer-to-peer way that incorporates modern search techniques and other
> tools.
> >> Making this workable and secure would be far from trivial, but it's
> worth
> >> the effort.
> >>
> >> A few years ago, I was a candidate for a post on the Icann board. During
> an
> >> interview, I was asked to describe what I hoped to achieve, should I be
> >> asked to serve. A major goal, I replied, was to find ways to make Icann
> less
> >> necessary. My service was not required.
> >>  --
> >>
> >>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Asif Kabani
> >Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> >Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
>


-- 
Asif Kabani
Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com


“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110626/711b94c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t