New gTLD Applicant Guidebook

[Michael Leibrandt <michael_leibrandt@xxxxxx>]

Providing more details regarding applied criteria and procedures, the second 
draft of the applicant guidebook is a significant step forward. But important 
questions regarding the introduction of TLD using geographic identifiers remain 
to be answered.

1.
TLD strings using the name of a geographic entity are not generic. In many 
ways, including public policy implications, these TLD concepts have much more 
in common with ccTLD. Therefore, applications for such strings do not fit into 
a new gTLD process. It would have been a better approach to first discuss and 
establish common rules for all geo-related TLD, and then start a separate 
process for the introduction of Geo-gTLD.

2.
Public policy concerns linked to TLD using geographic names are not limited to 
the application period. Like ccTLD, Geo-gTLD should be embedded in a common 
understanding of a trilateral relationship between ICANN, the registry, and the 
local Internet community. If significant parts of the local community including 
the relevant government or public authority are no longer satisfied with the 
services offered by the relevant Geo-gTLD registry, an early termination of the 
contract between ICANN and the registry must be possible. Therefore, clear 
rules for the re-delegation of Geo-gTLD need to be developed and established 
before the introduction of such TLD.    

3.
There should be no substitutions for the requirement to provide evidence of 
support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. 
Statements from the applicants side that the relevant government or public 
authority is not in a position to deliver such a message, or that an existing 
objection is not in line with the relevant legal framework, might be biased 
even if accompanied by statements of (?sponsored??) legal experts. Taking into 
account the variety and complexity of national legal frameworks, it can not be 
expected that the Geographic Names Panel will be able to finally asses who's 
right and who's wrong in such cases. Using the absence of sector-specific IT 
regulation in favor of Geo-gTLD applicants could do harm especially to 
developing countries who, despite ongoing efforts including those of ICANN, are 
still not fully aware of the implications of the Internet domain name system 
and have therefore not yet taken all necessary measures. Sector-specific IT 
regulation dealing with Internet domain names is an important element of 
operator-independent consumer protection once the Geo-gTLD has been introduced. 

4.
Geo-gTLD should always be based on Community Based Applications for the benefit 
of a restricted population. Especially concepts allowing the unrestricted 
global use of well known country, territory or place names should be handled 
with caution. In general, applications for Geo-gTLD not providing evidence of 
registration rules limiting the use of the TLD to members of the respective 
local community should be rejected.  

5.
The requested string does not indicate to what extent the applicant plans to 
follow a commercial or a non-for-profit approach. Despite marketing claims, it 
can especially not be expected that Geo-gTLD will generally be operated less 
profit-orientated than other TLD. Taking into account that -  due to the 
already mentioned variety and complexity of national legal frameworks - even 
the legal structure of the applicants organization does not give a clear 
indication, there should be no preferential treatment for Geo-gTLD with regard 
to registration and evaluation fees (which should  be as low as possible for 
all applicants to provide low market entry barriers).     


Michael Leibrandt
Internet User, Berlin



 


 

__________________________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie SMS direkt vom Postfach aus - in alle deutschen und viele 
ausländische Netze zum gleichen Preis! 
https://produkte.web.de/webde_sms/sms