[AfrICANN-discuss] Four Promises ICANN Must Meet with New Top-Level Domains

[Anne-Rachel Inné]

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111101_four_promises_icann_must_meet_with_new_top_level_domains/

Four Promises ICANN Must Meet with New Top-Level
Domains<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111101_four_promises_icann_must_meet_with_new_top_level_domains/>
  Print<http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20111101_four_promises_icann_must_meet_with_new_top_level_domains/>
Comment<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111101_four_promises_icann_must_meet_with_new_top_level_domains/#add_comment>
By *Steve DelBianco* <http://www.circleid.com/members/3698/>
[image: Steve DelBianco]

Just back from a week of ICANN meetings in Dakar. Is it just me, or is the
new top-level domain program starting to feel like a TLD
triathlon<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110620_now_begins_the_third_stage_of_icanns_tld_triathlon>,
where everyone's now jockeying for position in the final stage — a grueling
marathon?

When ICANN's board approved the new gTLD plan in Singapore, it came with
the promise of small but substantive changes to improve the program. I hope
that wasn't empty rhetoric, because as exciting as the program may be, it
must be improved if it is going to fulfill its promise to global Internet
users and their governments.

I had the opportunity in Dakar to address ICANN's Board on behalf of the
Business Constituency, which, like many stakeholders, sees much to gain
from a well-executed introduction of new gTLDs, but also sees much to lose
if the new program is poorly executed. To that end, I listed four promises
ICANN has to keep in its new gTLD program, at the risk of losing the
multi-stakeholder model and ICANN's future:

1) Enforceability of Registry Restrictions. Perhaps the most important
promise ICANN made to wary governments is to let them object to proposed
TLDs that may offend cultural, religious or national sensibilities. My
concern is that the current process won't empower ICANN to deliver on that
promise.

While we are asking governments and other stakeholders to base their
reaction to proposed strings on the proposed terms in their application,
those terms won't actually be enforceable unless they're part of the formal
Registry Agreement. This opens the risk that for some applicants, promised
restrictions on registrants and uses of domain names could be ignored after
their applications are approved. That would leave ICANN with little
leverage to hold TLDs to the restrictions that were relied upon to satisfy
governments and other objectors. This loophole should be closed before the
first applications are accepted, or ICANN risks breaking a critical promise
made to skeptical governments.

2) Serving the Next Billion Internet Users. Internationalized domain names
(IDNs) are the major benefit ICANN has promised to global Internet users.
Of all the gTLDs that will be created in the new gTLD process, IDNs have
the greatest potential to reach the next billion, most of whom don't use
the Latin alphabet as their primary script. But based on early activity in
the new gTLD community, it seems like IDN applications will represent only
a small fraction of the total applicant pool. It would be missed
opportunity if IDN users did not see recognizable TLDs coming out of this
new gTLD program. ICANN has fielded a range of proposals to increase IDNs
in this round (including targeted discounts and bundling of applications)
but has thus far shown no interest. Even a little bit of progress on this
front could pay huge dividends to underserved Internet users, and to the
governments that represent them at the UN.

3) Protecting Rights, Preventing Fraud. The issue of rights protection and
fraud prevention has been a centerpiece of the new gTLD debate, and still
dominates discussion about the program outside of the ICANN community. The
good news is that the ICANN community developed a suite of rights
protections mechanisms that should go a long way toward minimizing fraud
and abuse on new gTLDs. But one of the most valuable of these mechanisms —
trademark claims notices — is only required during the sunrise period for
new gTLDs. I told the board it would be a real shame if TM claims proves to
work well, only to have it disappear once a TLD is opened for business.
ICANN should find a way to encourage the continuation of tools like TM
Claims.

4) Raising the Bar for Registrars. With all the focus on registry
agreements, the new gTLD program somehow missed the opportunity strengthen
ICANN's contractual agreements with registrars who will sell and manage
names in new TLDs. When millions of new registrants enter the market, it is
the registrars — not registries — they will be dealing with. The new TLDs
are just as big for registrars as for registries, especially now that
cross-ownership and vertical integration are allowed. With the benefit of
hindsight, the ICANN community probably should have pushed harder for an
improved registrar agreement as a requirement to sell names in new TLDs.

 I realize that the ICANN community, staff and board are all fatigued with
the new gTLD process. I know I'm already tired, and the marathon stage has
only just begun.

But now is not the time to stand back and let the TLD chips fall where they
may. Governments, who are inherently skeptical of ICANN's stakeholder
model, will hold ICANN to its promises to maximize global benefits and
minimize harms to registrants and users.

As we saw in Dakar, it won't suffice to tell those governments that ICANN
enforcement is constrained to its Guidebook or constrained by its Policy
Development Process. Back in June 2010, I
described<http://www.circleid.com/posts/when_having_a_voice_isnt_enough>it
this way on CircleID:

There's a common-sense saying, "Don't moon the giant." Alienating
nongovernmental stakeholders is one thing, but ICANN is risking its very
existence if influential governments feel alienated or ignored. That's
because governments have options other than ICANN. They can turn to other
venues where their voice is law, such as the United Nations and ITU.

 Generally, speaking, promises gain greater weight when your critics and
rivals are just waiting to hang those promises around your neck. When it
comes to meeting the promises of new gTLDs, nothing less that the future of
ICANN and our multi-stakeholder model hangs in the balance.

*By Steve DelBianco <http://www.circleid.com/members/3698/>, Executive
Director at NetChoice. Visit the blog maintained by Steve DelBianco
here<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20111101/2cfe078f/attachment-0001.htm