RE: [bc-gnso] Orderly introduction of new TLDs

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your prompt response, Liz.  As always, the devil is in the
details, but the issue here is simple:  As stewards of the Internet, does
the ICANN community agree that the DNS should be a 'quilt' where one TLD
adjoins another, if you will, or a patchwork that overlaps everywhere?  I
make no bones about it, this issue does impact our intended application, but
it is not just an issue for us.  Rather, if we as the ICANN community don't
get this right, there will be no such thing as an orderly introduction of
new TLDs - ever.  The DNS will become a chaotic place that not only doesn't
serve Internet users around the world - today and one hundred years from now
- the ever-growing confusion will only serve cement search engine companies'
control over the Net.

 

Drilling down a little deeper:  Naming the intended community is akin to
writing a business plan before you start your business.  The purpose is to
look at your business from every possible angle to ensure that one has a
good understanding of what their business is.  It is not to say every
applicant must be a community-based TLD.  I use the word community loosely
to determine which market a new TLD would appeal to.  Consider an applicant
for .BLUE.  Which is the community it will serve?  Tough to score high
points on that one; whereas .HOTEL is crystal clear.

 

On differentiation, if an applicant cannot demonstrate differentiation, why
should their TLD be added to the root?  What purpose does that TLD serve?
As you know, we had to answer that question in the round of 2004, and it was
subjective in its form at that time.  The current DAG has managed to remove
almost all of the subjectivity from the comparative evaluation, so I am
confident that we can do the same for the differentiation question. 

 

We need to ensure that this exercise SERVES the greater good of Internet
users, not any entrepreneur who thinks she/he has a good idea.  As such, I
strongly believe that we need to add safeguards that protect registrants in
these new TLDs, as well as those who are building out the DNS.

 

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: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Liz Williams
Sent: 2009-10-14 07:13
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Orderly introduction of new TLDs

 

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
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baumann-to-dengate-thrush-20aug09-en.pd
f>  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