<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [bc-gnso] Orderly introduction of new TLDs
- To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Orderly introduction of new TLDs
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:12:51 +0100
Hello Ron
This is really interesting. Having just completed the Independent
Review Process with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in
Washington DC on the .xxx domain application, your notes bring up two
key subjective issues which will need fleshing out.
The first is that an applicant has to identify a community. I had
thought that there were no limitations on the kind of applications
which may be submitted and that generic applications (like .shopping)
would be as acceptable as a .holidays (to continue your travel
theme). We have had the proof of concept 2000 generic round, the
limited "sponsored" 2003 round and I think that there is every
expectation from a wide range of applicants that the next round would
be open to any kind of applicant.
The second is differentiation from other TLDs. This is a very tricky
question for applicants. It is easy to do that retrospectively
comparing a new application to a legacy TLD but almost impossible to
do against any concurrent application for something similar. For
example, vacations, holidays and travel.
The other difficult part of this is that evaluator's must be given
guidance in the evaluation process -- differentiation is subjective;
adding value to the DNS is subjective (for example, I love to travel
but does .travel add "value" to the DNS); assessing competition is
subjective and where that competition exists in the chain of
relationships between end users and registry operators.
Finally, isn't your concern about an applicant who may be applying for
something that is similar to or competing with an existing TLD
addressed in the objection processes?
Best wishes.
Liz
On 14 Oct 2009, at 11:57, Ron Andruff wrote:
Dear fellow members,
Prior to the close of the last round of comments on the DAG v2, RNA
Partners submitted a comment that focused on the fact that ICANN is
embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing some
parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a definition. The logic in
favor of defining the TLD is simple: Applicants should be
encouraged to expand the name space, but should not be allowed to
cannibalize other registries. A case in point was the round of
2004, when Tralliance Corporation received the right to
manage .TRAVEL we were restricted from marketing to any travel
entities that would fall under .AERO, i.e. airports, airlines, etc.
In the discussions that I have had with ICANN community leadership
over the last weeks it appears that all support the logic of
including two questions in the final AG: (1) what community do you
intend to serve? and (2) how does your TLD differentiate itself from
others in the DNS? Answers to these two questions that demonstrate
added value to the DNS would ensure that only those TLDs which act
in harmony with one another are added to the root, rather than
allowing applicants that meet the current criteria in DAG v3
irrespective of the fact that they may overlap or undercut another
registry. With some 24 gTLDs today, one might say there is
relatively little concern about this horizon issue; however, 5-10
years out, without the protections we are recommending, new
applicant registry operators would have no impediment to undermining
successful TLDs by selecting names that would diminish an
established domain space. That would be anything but an orderly
introduction of new TLDs to the DNS.
We have reached out the GAC in this regard, as their recent
communication with ICANN appears to be inline with our concerns. I
have included my email to the Canadian GAC representative below for
your information.
In the interest of full disclosure, RNA Partners management is
intending to apply to manage .SPORT on behalf of the global sport
community.
I look forward to furthering this dialogue with you on the list and
in Seoul.
Thank you for your consideration in bringing this issue to an
appropriate resolution.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2009-10-09 18:24
To: 'Heather Dryden'
Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; Cherian Mathai
Subject: Orderly introduction of new TLDs
Importance: High
Dear Heather,
I am contacting you at the suggestion of Marilyn Cade as I, like
you, am Canadian ;o) and a colleague of Marilyn’s for some 10-years
in the Business Constituency. I also note, in the interest of full
disclosure, that my company will be applying to manage the .sport
domain for the global sporting community.
Marilyn and I have been discussing how to enroll ICANN in the notion
of an orderly introduction of new gTLDs and were considering the GAC
correspondence to ICANN Chair, Peter Dengate-Thrush of August 18th,
2009, in light of our concerns. I note that much of the contents of
that letter are consistent with the Business Constituency position
on new TLDs, as well as our personally-held position. The BC set
forth the following principles regarding expanding the name space
following the round of 2000:
Five principles to determine future expansion
Name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-
value there will be user demand. In this way expansion will enhance
choice, competition and be in the public interest. In a global
market economy added-value means differentiation and a practical way
to achieve this is if all new names meet five principles:
1
Differentiation
a gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other gTLDs
2
Certainty
a gTLD must give the user confidence that it stands for what it
purports to stand for
3
Good faith
a gTLD must avoid increasing opportunities for bad faith entities
who wish to defraud users
4
Competition
a gTLD must create added-value competition
5
Diversity
a gTLD must serve commercial or non-commercial users
Amongst several comments on DAG v 2, the BC noted the following:
Module 1
1.1.2.7 We agree with the standard for confusingly
similar gTLD strings, which will not be allowed if they are deemed
“so similar that they create a probability of detrimental user
confusion if more than one is delegated.” But more detail is needed
as to how ICANN will make this determination.
Module 2
2.1.1.1The Standard for String Confusion is inaccurately limited to
“visually” similar. Instead string confusion should be deemed to
exist where they are “so similar – in sight, sound ormeaning –
that they create a probability of detrimental user confusion if more
than one is delegated.”
I contacting you today because we would like to get a sense from you
as to how we should engage with the GAC to ensure that ICANN, in
fact, introduces new TLDs in an orderly and managed manner rather
than its current position of throwing open the door without
consideration of the consequences of their actions further down the
road.
In July 2009 we submitted a comment to DAG v2 that focused on the
fact that ICANN is embarking on rolling out new TLDs without
establishing some parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a
definition. The logic is simple: Applicants should be entitled to
flesh out the name space, but should not be allowed to cannibalize
other registries. Our comment is noted here:
ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain'
To: <e-gtld-evaluation@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain'
From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:34:27 -0400
To avoid the useless squandering of time and financial resources of
ICANN reviewers, staff and those of new TLD applicants, as well as
to avoid the needless bogging down of the roll out of new TLDs with
objections based upon (1) string confusion; (2) misappropriation of
community; and (3) infringement on the rights of others, ICANN must
define what a top-level domain is.
We recommend that the definition should be "the apex of a well-
defined human activity, a community or a sector"; the key word in
that definition being "apex", which directly equates to the word
"top" of "top-level domain".
This area was well-addressed in the new TLD application process used
in the last round of introductions of new TLDs, but is missing from
the current Draft Applicant Guidebook ("DAG"). In the applications
for the 2004 round of sponsored top-level domains, the first
question [paraphrased] was: How does the proposed TLD add new value
to the Internet? The second question was: How does an application
differentiate from existing TLDs? And the third question asked:
Which unmet needs does a proposed new TLD meet? ICANN staff cannot
overlook or discard these core principles going forward unless it
intends to unilaterally abandon the logical expansion of the domain
name space that the ICANN community has worked so long and hard to
establish from the outset of ICANN's existence. This would be
tantamount to abandoning the bottom up principles upon which ICANN
was built and stands today.
Absent inclusion of this critical definition, ICANN would open the
door to a proliferation of TLDs that would be miniature sub-segments
of apex TLDs, which would lead to user confusion at best, and,
without doubt, challenges from apex TLDs, unnecessary defensive
registrations and pernicious compliance issues.
A case in point would be that in the event .NYC is granted to a
registry, and another five TLDs would be awarded
for .BROOKLYN, .BRONX, .MANHATTAN, .STATENISLAND and .QUEENS (the
five boroughs that comprise the City of New York), the cacophony of
domain names for the same community would render the whole TLD
process absurd.
The second DAG is not clear on this issue and therefore we believe
that this oversight needs to be rectified to ensure that these
particular requirements from the 2004 introduction of new TLDs are
included in the process guaranteeing that in all cases the
anticipated TLD expansion first and foremost brings value to
Internet users, and thus ICANN can avoid any circumstance where user
confusion could arise.
This issue can be addressed and clarified in the definition of
"confusingly similar strings". The current definition should be
expanded beyond the semantic equivalence to also address the
diminution of a TLD. In rectifying this oversight in the third DAG,
ICANN will not only avoid user confusion issues, but it will stop
the loss of precious valuable resources that will undoubtedly be
wasted on a myriad of objections that could have been clearly
avoided from the start.
We trust that ICANN appreciates that the logical expansion of the
domain name space is at the heart of this process and that the
critical issue we are raising is in the interest of all stakeholders
in the new TLD process, but especially trademark holders, those with
responsibility for Internet security and stability, ICANN compliance
staff and, most importantly, Internet users both in the near term
and those in the coming decades.
In August, the .sport Policy Advisory Council (“PAC”), which
represents the global sport community sent a letter to ICANN CEO and
Chair to advise ICANN of the support and concerns of the
international sports family, particularly with regard to diminution
of .sport. Sport is concerned that such diminution would gravely
undermine sport solidarity, which enables stronger federations to
support those with less resources and capabilities. In short, the
PAC has very real concerns that ICANN would approve .sport as well
as .volleyball, .basketball and the like.
As I mentioned at the start of this email, we believe that the GAC
letter supports a position that calls for applicants to define their
intended community as well as what differentiation they bring to the
DNS, as examples of defining themselves (as was required in previous
rounds).
I would be most grateful if you could advise us as to how we best
bring this forward for GAC consideration. I believe that the IP and
ISP constituencies, as well as the BC, support establishing clarity
around this issue and ensuring new TLDs are meaningful additions to
the DNS (rather than creating a free-for-all). GAC support would
ensure a logical expansion.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this rather long
mail (I apologize for that!) and for giving us direction as we look
to Seoul to get consensus on this position.
I look forward to your soonest response. FYI, as I will be
traveling over the coming weeks leading up to Seoul, should you need
to speak with me my cell is: +1 917 770 2693.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|