JPNIC comments on DAG v4

[maruyama@xxxxxxxxx (MARUYAMA Naomasa)]

Dear ICANN,

  In relation to the current New gTLD process, it seems that some
people have some expectation for so-called "Single registrant TLDs",
"Brand TLDs" and "Corporate TLDs"(hereafter referred to as
"proprietary TLDs" collectively), which are intended to be used solely
by each applicant for itself.  We, JPNIC, would like to submit our
comment about this matter.

  The current New gTLD process is based upon a GNSO report to the
Board

"Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains"
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtlds-11sep07.pdf

dated Sept. 11, 2007.  The report is obviously a set of policy
recommendations for introduction of "TLDs for registry business", that
is, TLDs which are aimed for third-party registrations of second level
domain names in the TLD.  This fact is clearly seen in Recommendation
1(p.19), Recommendations 16 and 19(p.21), for example, in the report.
Therefore, it is obvious that these kinds of proprietary TLDs are out
of scope of the current New gTLD process.  We strongly urge ICANN to
clearly state this fact in the forthcoming final version of the New
gTLD RFP for the next round.

   In the followings, we would like to provide some additional
rationales for our request.

1. The idea of "TLDs for registry business" has relations to various
parts of the Draft Application Guidebook(DAG)v4, including mandatory
use of Registrars, vertical separation of Registries and Registrars.
Therefore, in case an applicant do not correctly understand the idea
and planning to use the TLD for itself, serious troubles may take
place, including lawsuits against ICANN.  ICANN is responsible for
making effort to avoid such troubles, and the best way to achieve that
is to state clearly in the forthcoming New gTLD RFP that these kinds
of proprietary TLDs are out of scope of the next round.

2. In the current New gTLD process, a notion of "Community-Based TLD"
is in place, and it seems some people understand this as a possible
way for proprietary TLDs.  But, as mentioned by the Chair of ICANN
Board Peter Dengate Thrush in the public forum in Sydney on June 25,
2009, it is difficult to understand "proprietary brands" as
"communities".  Therefore, ICANN has to state clearly that
"Community-Based TLDs" will not open the door for proprietary TLDs.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let me see if I can get an answer from Kurt
Pritz in relation to whether or not, as I understand the question, will
proprietary brands need to go through -- need to be treated as
community or -- 

As far as I understand, they don't, but let's get somebody who knows
about these things.  Kurt?

(http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-public-forum-25jun09-en.txt)

3. Microsoft once submitted the following comment for DAGv1:

    If ICANN does not intend to allow the "community-based gTLD"
    designation to apply to corporate, branded gTLDs, it should so
    state and provide a detailed explanation as to why not.

(Page 58 of
 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18feb09-en.pdf
 )

Keeping in mind possible troubles indicated in 1, this comment by
Microsoft is quite reasonable.  ICANN has to respond to this, and the
response might be:

    ICANN does NOT intend to allow the "community-based gTLD"
    designation to apply to corporate, branded gTLDs at least for the
    next round,

and the explanation might be:

    Corporate, branded gTLDs are out of scope of the GNSO report to the
    Board dated Sept. 11, 2007.

Respectfully submitted by Naomasa Maruyama on behalf of the Board of
Trustees of Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC).

----
(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)