ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain'

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.