Thinking about applying for a new generic top level domain? Then ante up $55,000 for the right to file an application.
That’s the heart of a tentative proposal for an Expressions of Interest (EOI) procedure for new gTLDs released on December 18th by ICANN for public comment by January 27, 2010 (see http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18dec09-en.htm).
In a nutshell, the proposal is:
• The ICANN Board will decide on whether to initiate this form of EOI at its February 2010 meeting
• Participation in the proposed pre-registration EOI will be mandatory to submit a bid in the first application round, which is likely to commence in the second half of 2010
• The $55,000 pre-registration fee will be credited against the full $185,000 application fee; it will be refundable only under limited circumstances that are within ICANN’s control
• The EOI will itself launch only after the remaining overarching issues for new gTLDs are resolved, the fourth and probably last Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAGv4) is published, and an ICANN communications campaign publicizing the EOI is undertaken — based on ICANN’s progress to date, the accomplishment of those multiple goals could be many months away, and the actual time gap between the launch of the EOI and the new gTLD application period itself could be relatively short
• Applicant data including the requested string(s) will be revealed to public – that is, we’ll get to know exactly who is planning to apply for a particular new gTLD
The EOI concept was broached by Minds and Machines and other prospective new gTLD applicants and consultants at ICANN’s Seoul meeting. There’s been general consensus at the EOI public comments page (http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/) that a properly designed EOI process could be helpful to ICANN and applicants by providing indications of:
• The number of potential first round applicants
• The ratio of ASCII versus IDN applications
• The types of potential applications (brand, community/cultural, geo, generic, etc.)
• The potential location of new gTLD registry operators and whether they are in the developed or developing world
• The type of hard data that’s been missing from ICANN’s economic analyses of new gTLD demand
That said, our review of the EOI comments indicates that there is no consensus at all regarding what a properly designed EOI should look like. We would expect that there will be strong protests from many quarters that the type of mandatory EOI with a high level fee being proposed by ICANN is unprecedented, and prejudicial to many potential community and developing world applications. Given that it will be some time before the proposed preconditions for EOI launch have been satisfied, leaving a relatively short period between the EOI and the actual acceptance period for first round applications, this ICANN proposal may well divert a lot of time and energy into a secondary debate that is peripheral to the actual determination of the final rules for new gTLDs. Ironically, that could result in the EOI delaying the opening of the application window, which is far from what EOI proponents meant to accomplish in Seoul.
ICA did not comment on the general EOI concept because this is largely a dispute among prospective applicants jockeying for position at the starting gate, while our attention has been focused on the actual rules for new gTLDs – especially as they relate to trademark protections that go beyond the existing UDRP, the treatment of geo names at the second level, and the registry agreement rules relating to differential pricing of domain name renewals. But we would guess that if this proposed pre-registration EOI is adopted it will result in fewer overall first round gTLD applications, as the $55k pre-registration fee will help separate the wheat from the chaff.
Given that the most radical trademark proposals have been premised on a tsunami of hundreds of new applications, and that the actual number is likely to be substantially less given the prevailing economic climate, a process that trims the number of potential applicants is likely to rebound in favor of domain investors regardless of whether they see opportunities in any of the proposed strings.