Review of gTLD First Round Seen Needed Before Starting Second Round for New Domains
LOS ANGELES -- The disputed success of the first round of the new generic top-level domain program should give pause to domain interests who want to begin a second round of new gTLDs, said panelists at ICANN 51 Monday. Many domain experts said that appropriate time considerations are needed to review issues of first round gTLDs before beginning the second round. The panelists said the first round of gTLDs didn’t adequately reach developing countries, but some questioned whether the idea of a “remedial round” for parties unable to register in the first round wasn’t better in theory than in practice. That idea was suggested by Evan Leibovitch, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) vice chairman.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
It would be ill-advised to try to divide the camps in the debate over the second round between those who want that round to start immediately and others who say, “‘review and delay,’” said NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco. The debate is “nothing like that,” he said. The first round reviews are an “obligation” of ICANN’s, he said. There are a lot of “lessons to be learned” from reviewing the new gTLD application and evaluation process, particularly while they’re “fresh on the minds” of domain interests, said DelBianco.
“How soon is too soon and how late is too late” for a second round, asked ALAC Chairman Olivier Crepin Leblond. An early second round that’s eventually delayed needs to be avoided in the interest of small businesses, which could be harmed upon such a delay, he said. “That’s not fair” for such applicants, said Leblond. “We shouldn’t be in a position where the [ICANN] board has to vote in under duress because of the huge amount of pressure” to start the new gTLD program, he said. In retrospect, the first round had many “holes in the applicant guidebook,” said Leblond.
“Collecting data” on the first round “should and can be done now,” said Keith Drazek, Verisign policy director. Challenges of determining ICANN’s budget for such a round and projecting application fees and the number of gTLDs to be made available are reasons a second round would be “premature,” he said.
What’s the “worth” of a second round, if the first round’s metrics aren’t determined first, asked Leblond. The first round has encouraged gTLD registrations by those with “deep pockets,” which can lead to “speculation,” he said. It’s that kind of activity that creates criticism of ICANN, said Leblond. The review mechanisms for first round gTLDs need to be “viewed in light of reality,” not “fears or doubts,” said Michele Neylon, managing director of Blacknight, an Ireland-based domain registrar. Neylon said the lack of new gTLD uptake in the developing world was partly attributable to ICANN’s “inability” to make such consumers aware of new domains. Neylon said he disagreed with the idea of a “remedial round.”
The number of new gTLD applications probably “surprised” ICANN, which is the first indicator of the first round’s success, said Mason Cole, vice president-communications of Donuts, a domain registry, in an interview. One year into the launch of the new gTLD program, there have been almost 3 million new gTLD registrations, he said. Donuts said Monday it reached its millionth new gTLD registration (http://bit.ly/1vpBjhV). Cole disputed the notion that the first round of new gTLDs hadn’t fared well. “The new gTLDs are more stable and secure than the legacy TLDs, and they’ve been adopted at a pretty rapid pace,” he said.