Input on New gTLDs

[RJGlass <jipshida@xxxxxxxxx>]

Input on New gTLDs
Randy Glass
America@Large
http://AmericaAtLarge.us


In response to ICANN?s call for papers regarding input
on new gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains), I submit the
following input.


Should new generic top level domain names be
introduced? 

After some type of due diligence, it is not
unreasonable to introduce new gTLDs or sTLDs
(sponsored Top Level Domains).  However, I believe it
is important not to do so haphazardly as to disrupt or
confuse the normal operation of the Internet.  There
should be a policy to introduce new top level domains.


Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains 

In order for the Internet to remain a stable medium,
care should be taken in selecting new TLDs.  In recent
years, several new TLDs have been introduced, and some
controversy has ensued.  A historical narrative...

In the beginning, there was .com, .net, and .org,
among others.  It was the general impression that
commercial enterprises would use .com, network-related
entities would use .net, nonprofit organizations would
use .org, and educational institutions would use .edu.
 Disregarding trademark issues, this seemed to be a
way of segmenting the market.  However, we see that
this rationale didn?t thoroughly take hold.  Regarding
trademark issues, every additional TLD adds to the
concerns of trademark holders.  There has never been a
firm standard set outside the UDRP (Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy) and stated sunrise periods for
trademark owners and ownership rights for Second Level
Domains (SLDs).  This initial thought was at least
manageable with trademark holders, but nonetheless
sunrise periods became common for new TLDs.  This
architecture would seem logical for the fact that a
business could run their website through their .com,
their backend through .net, and have a community
foundation under their umbrella using the .org (using
the same second level domain), or redirect to one
location for resolvability.  Or, separate entities
could operate on each of the TLDs under the same SLD
(second level domain) and differentiate themselves
between the TLDs themselves.  Otherwise, why would
there be a need for more than one TLD?

Of course, we must not disregard country-coded TLDs
(ccTLD), which segment the market based on current
geo-political boundaries.  The administration of
global resolvability among all TLDs is certainly quite
a task.  This should in some effect satisfy trademark
holders, as it creates a geographical consideration to
their market.  Therefore, an American company would
have the ability to use .us, and a similarly
trademarked company in France would have use of .fr,
and have the same SLD.  Trademark holder?s interests
should in most cases be limited to their respective
ccTLD.

Moving on, there became .aero, .museum, etc. to
further segment the markets.  I?m not meaning to
signify that there is no valid purpose for these TLDs,
certainly they do serve a purpose.  However, does it
create some added value to the Internet, or does it
further segment that which had already existed?  What
is the real difference between; let?s say a flying
club using .com, .org, or .aero?  Would they have to
register under each TLD to protect a trademark?  Would
there be confusion among the users?  Does it create an
opportunity to create SLDs that are already taken by
trademark holders?  Why couldn?t they use .us?  Why
would they want a trademark registration anyway?  Does
any of it matter anyway?  These questions and more are
asked every time a domain registration for a SLD takes
place, and are not clearly answered by current
agreements.

Then came more proposals to further segment, or add
value, whichever is the preferred argument.  Some have
worked, others have caused controversy, some may
become a flop.  Whether they are referred to as sTLDs
or gTLDs, or whether it?s global or generic, makes
little difference at this point.  As these TLDs reach
the market, to the average user of the Internet this
becomes little more than confusion rather than
something new.

Currently, more technologies and media are converging
and usership is steadily increasing.  While this does
create many good things, it also creates confusion and
obsolescence.  There is, however, a clear need for
TLDs that enable.  By this, I elude to the fact that
other character sets for TLDs should at some point
become available, as well as TLDs that enable easier
browsing of websites via cellular telephone or other
technologies, or connect people beyond what we can now
see.  Therefore, new applicants for TLDs should answer
one fundamental question: What purpose does it serve
that is not currently being served by existing TLDs?

In closing this narrative, I by no means want to
hinder free trade or commerce or limit in any way the
progress of the Internet and its users.  If a business
wants to put money down and create an idea, then they
should be supported ? within reason.  There is, and
will continue to be, a need for new TLDs if the
Internet is to evolve.

1-      The new TLD should serve a specific purpose.
2-      The new TLD should not directly compete with
existing TLDs.
3-      The new TLD should provide a positive contribution
to the Internet architecture.
4-      The new TLD should not be a hindrance to the
Internet architecture.
5-      And have:
a.      clearly defined policies for individual operators
b.      policies for dissolution
c.      architecture for backups (DNS / Data /
Resolvability)
d.      global resolvability*

Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains

The allocation of new TLDs should be contingent first
upon approval of ICANN, and to: 
(a) a business entity, either for-profit or
non-profit;
(b) who can fully and independently manage their root
servers, architecture, and Domain Name System; 
(c) for a specific purpose that contributes to the
usefulness of the Internet;
(d) who requires global resolvability

Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top
Level Domains

For any new registry applicants :

1-      Registration policies should be clearly defined and
enforced.
2-      Technical issues should be clearly identified.
3-      Clear policies regarding transitions among new
registry operators.

Individuals below have contributed much useful
information regarding contractual conditions and
policies:

Michael D. Palage, ?Minimizing the Impact of Internet
Stakeholders in connection with a gTLD Registry.?

Danny Younger, et al., ?Comments from the General
Assembly?s Internet Users.?


* for these purposes, meaning for a domain to be
resolvable among the general worldwide population of
Internet users.

_____
A@L