Re: [alac] ALAC concerns re: [gtld-com] Draft Final report gTLD committee

[Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wendy

maybe i don't read good, but i don't read nothing about "consumer 
protection" in the documents, maybe as At-large rep. we can sugest 
something in this way.

Erick


At 04:54 p.m. 16/05/2003 -0700, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> The ALAC supports the latest draft's conclusion that "expansion of the 
> gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the 
> interested parties to ICANN"; that "there should be no pre-determined list 
> of new names that putative registries would bid for"; and that "expansion 
> should be demand-driven".
>
> Beyond that basic conclusion, however, the ALAC finds that the 
> specification of objectives or criteria has moved in the wrong direction 
> since the last draft.  The expansion in scope concerns us on both 
> procedural and substantive levels.  Procedurally, the lack of public 
> comment is troubling, particularly as public input might have prompted 
> reconsideration of some of the concrete issues we raise below.
>
> We continue to believe that ICANN should simply oversee development of a 
> genuine competitive market for domain name services.  Basing market entry 
> on a minimal and objective no-harm evaluation is key to achieving this 
> goal.  While we understand the Council's desire to give more than a 
> one-word answer, parts of the current expanded answer lean toward 
> regulating this nascent market more than seems desirable.
>
> The latest draft appears to conflate "substitutability" with "confusing 
> similarity," and thus would endorse anti-competitive prohibitions on 
> similarity in the name of preventing confusion. Instead, these restrictive 
> criteria would deny Internet users the widest range of options for name 
> registration and deny market participants the chance to compete fully with 
> incumbents.  We have trust in the ability of Internet users to 
> differentiate among names serving similar markets.
>
>
> In this light, we offer the following comments on the substance of some of 
> the criteria:
>
> * Criterion 4, "An easily understood relationship must exist between a new 
> gTLD and its stated purpose": The notion of "easily understood" is a 
> function of the entity trying to understand the relationship. When used in 
> an evaluation, this criterion would invite subjective judgment.  It seems 
> more appropriate to leave this question for the market to answer -- 
> *after* a TLD has been introduced. Further, we would emphasize that a 
> TLD's "stated purpose" could also mean the generic "open to any use."
>
> * Criterion 6, "Future names should add-value to the domain name system." 
> As a key objective of the entire process, addition of future names should 
> not diminish the value of the domain name system. Individual prospective 
> names, however, should not be scrutinized for their added value.  Once 
> more, subjective judgment would be involved on a question which is more 
> appropriately left for the market to answer.
>
> * Criterion 8 seems to suggest that incumbent TLD operators should have 
> the ability to veto competitors addressing a segment of the same or a 
> similar market, or to at least dictate competitors' policies, if these 
> competitors use "translations or transliterations" of the incumbent's TLD 
> string.  We fail to see the benefit of this criterion to the public at 
> large.  To the contrary, it seems to unduly strengthen the position of 
> incumbent operators over new market participants, damaging competition.
>
> * Criterion 11 seems to suggest that incumbent sponsors should have 
> privileged access to market segments that would complement to the markets 
> they are serving now.  This criterion would, in the case of sponsored 
> TLDs, strengthen the role of incumbents even beyond what is suggested in 
> point 8, and so the same concerns as above apply.
>
> * Criterion 12 seems to suggest that new TLD proposals should be designed 
> to address markets which, if possible, do not overlap with those served by 
> incumbent TLD operators.  This criterion too appears anti-competitive, 
> rather than to the benefit of the public at large.
>
> * Concerning the draft's additional considerations on business continuity, 
> we recommend that continuity planning be seen as an opportunity to permit 
> easier entry (because it would alleviate problems attendant to registry 
> failure), not to further restrict new entrants.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --Wendy Seltzer
> Interim At-Large Advisory Committee, gTLDs Committee Liaison
>
> --