Question: Do you support ICANN staff's decision to charge a non-refundable $50,000 fee merely to apply for a TLD? Do you believe that such a charge is cost-justified? Do you think it deterred any worthwhile applications?

Nominee Replies

Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-10-01 21:35:54 I think that the fee is excessive. In addition to the fact that the fee is non-refundable, it appears that it cannot be applied to a resubmission based on modifications suggested by ICANN. There appears to be little or no sensitivity to the needs of economically developing countries within ICANN when determining fees. As ACM President, I successfully pushed to get ACM to restructure our membership dues to take into consideration the economic limitations experienced by our members living in countries with low per capita incomes. If elected to the ICANN Board, I would push for similar considerations within ICANN. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-22 08:03:20 The $50K non-refundable fee is clearly absurd; no, I don't support it. But it's not hard to understand ICANN's decision, even if you don't agree with it. Charging a high fee is often used to deter frivolous applications, but in this case I imagine that ICANN staff simply wanted to discourage applications of any kind, as they could not possibly process a large number without substantial additional resources. Obviously, this would not be a problem if there were no processing involved (if, for example, creating a new TLD involved nothing more elaborate than asking an administrator to add a new delegation record to the root zone database), but the ICANN staff doesn't currently live in that simpler world, however desirable it might be - they are obliged to follow the existing IANA rules for creating new TLDs and delegating their management to responsible and competent parties, based on RFC 1591 (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt). We should not be surprised that lack of agreement on fundamental matters of policy produces absurdities like the $50K fee at the staff level. Let's focus on causes, rather than symptoms. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-18 13:40:49 The $50,000 fee is outrageous in and of itself. The non-refundable aspect adds insult to injury. The fact of the matter is this - there is utterly no truth to the claim that new TLDs will have any impact whatsoever on the stability of the Internet. What that word is code for is the fact that those who are in mass marketing want to spread the cost of what they want DNS to be onto the commons, i.e. to you and me. Those who cry stability, stability never seem to mention what they mean by stability or who is going to benefit or who is going to pay the costs. Instead engaging in fantasy paranoia about new TLDs, ICANN should be more concerned with the real danger caused by things like the mistake that caused .com to disappear from the DNS system for several hours the other week. And where is ICANN's concern with regard to the fact that the entire domain name system is a single point of failure that can be brought down by a script kiddee, just as the e.root-servers.net machine was rendered useless the other day by a Denial of Service (DoS) attack? So for ICANN to charge $50,000 to study whether a new TLD won't impact stability is, in a word, unconscionable. One should not forget the Hush-A-Phone decision of 1956. (See instructions how to use a Hush-a-Phone.) In the 1956 case, Hush-A-Phone Corp. v. United States, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 190, 238 F.2d 266, 1956 U.S. App., AT&T - the ICANN of its day - forced the Hush-A-Phone company to stop selling its completely passive little plastic widget because AT&T, backed by the FCC, asserted that the snap on device would damage the stability of the phone system. A court finally told AT&T and the FCC to go jump in a lake as it was patently obvious that their assertions were baseless. Today's use of the word stability with regard to new TLDs is as equally baseless as AT&T's claims about the Hush-A-Phone. Let us adopt the rule of Hush-A-Phone: That the Internet, in particular DNS, should permit any use that is privately beneficial as long as it is not publicly detrimental. And the showing the detriment must be made by clear and specific evidence, not by hypothetical conjecture. Candidate Miller suggests that there is some notion of a bona fide applicant for a TLD. I disagree. Let's face it, everybody, even speculators, has a bona fide right to obtain a domain name, even a TLD. The only limitation ought to be when a TLD is used - actually used, in some specific way, that impinges on the rights of someone else. Anybody and everybody who wants to start a new TLD for whatever purpose they desire ought to be able to do so. Sure some will fail - unless those who cry stability are willing to become guarantors of business sucess. The only limitation ought to be on the rate on which the root zone administrator can add delegation records to the file. I figure 30/day, i.e. 10,000 TLDs a year, would require perhaps one to three hours per day of clerical time, let's be generous and say 1/2 Full-Time. Of course the $50,000 fee has discourged worthwhile applications - do you think that the small charities of the world are willing to risk $50,000? The purpose of the $50,000 is clearly to help ICANN get itself out of the near insolvency that it has brought upon itself by its spendthrift management. I must say that is amusing to contrast the assertion made by the Department of Commerce to the GAO that the Dept o' Commerce retains ultimate control over the DNS with ICANN's attempt to claim that ICANN, and it alone, says what will go into that root and that one must pay $50,000 for a chance enter the ICANN lottery. It seems that if the DoC is telling the truth, then the winners in the ICANN lottery are going to have to start all over again and justify their desires before the Dept of Commerce. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-18 11:46:18 No I do not support the current system with the nonrefundable $50,000 fee. One possible better system would use an auction method with a threshold bid level (much below $50,000, especially for nonprofit-related TLDs). The threshold would help ensure cost recovery for ICANN's evaluation process, while the auction would let the market work as much as possible with TLD allocation. And only successful bids would pay (after examination by ICANN or outside assessor as to competency of winning bidder). Winning bidder would forfeit only the threshold amount if bidder found not competent. Some TLD's would go for well over $50,000, others would go for much less. There could be special rules for nonprofits, as well as for any chartered and unchartered TLDs. There is much room for creativity and fairness in the allocation of TLDs. I would look for a better alternative than the current $50,000 nonrefundable application fee. As to whether the $50,000 charge is cost justified, it probably is for some applications, but not for others. A more flexible system (such as auction method mentioned above) would be better. Has current system deterred any worthwhile applications? Probably. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-18 09:18:51 Do I support it? No. It has plainly deterred worthwhile applications, or skewed those applications. Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-18 07:47:59 Your question is a good one. It goes to the core of many intersecting issues that are before the Board of Directors. How does one encourage participation in the Net while addressing the adequate needs and expectations of the user community? And while attempting to maintain some aspect of stability for the network? I support some fee. I do not know how the staff arrived at the exact $50,000 figure. My reasoning is straightforward. An important goal for ICANN should be to preserve and enhance the stability of the network. And to protect users' expectations. This relatively modest fee is one means -- albeit indirect -- of ensuring the bona fides of those seeking a TLD. As mentioned, I can not say how the precise $50,000 was derived. But I do support some minimum threshold requirement for TLD applications. Many long time ICANN observers have noted that fees and other expenses should not be used as a barrier to entry. In general, I agree with that premise. And I firmly believe that encouraging broad participation in the Net is vital for ICANN's future. As a Board Member, certainly creating inclusive ICANN policies would be a major priority. Nonetheless, TLD participation by those lacking the wherewithal to submit the fee suggests issues about their ability perform adequately. Wide participation in the TLD space by those who can render stable and dependable service serves no one and undermines confidence in the network. I am not wed to any figure such as $50,000 or any set procedure. My number one priority is to have a mechanism in place that serves to test the ability of TLD applicants to serve the user community.