Update: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps
Team -- After I circulated a draft on Monday, I had some discussions that prompted me to make some revisions before our Friday WG call. (attached v2.1.1) First, I realized we should clarify items 2.1 and 2.3 so it's obvious that Open TLDs are still included. So I changed it to " This measure includes open TLDs and closed keyword TLDs, but not closed brand TLDs." Second, I may have been too quick to eliminate closed TLDs from three of the competition metrics. (3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 ). Here's why: In the Monday draft, I suggested items 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 use "Open TLDs only" because most registrants won't view closed TLDs as competition to legacy TLDs, since they won't be able to register their domains there. That's true of community TLDs, too. But some quantity of registrants will see community and closed TLDs as competition for their registration. For example, Amazon will view .amazon and their own .book TLD as competing with legacy TLDs for registering Amazon's current 2nd level domains. And Internet Users can always access domains in closed TLDs (sports.book, search.Amazon) so Users will always view closed TLDs as competition for legacy TLDs. So upon reflection, I think we should retain our original "all gTLDs" approach for 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:23 PM To: "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps As Jonathan mentioned in his note, I took a stab at editing our advice letter to identify several metrics that should not include "Closed" gTLDs. My suggested changes are in red, starting on page 9 of the attachment. That's where I offer a definition of open/closed based on whether the TLD operator has been granted the exemption to Specification 9: Registry Operator Code of Conduct. (the Code of Conduct is shown in Appendix B) Please reply with edits and suggestions and we'll discuss everything on our Friday call. Best, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 From: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM To: "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps (or how I learned to stop worrying and love Jeff Neuman) WG, As we arrived in Toronto last Friday, we encountered concerns from the Registries and Registrars regarding our advice letter, just as GNSO Council was planning to vote on sending our final advice to the board. Jeff Neuman sent a gracious email (see below) explaining his concern: several hundred new gTLDs won't make domain registrations available to the public, so many of our proposed metrics would be inapplicable. In fact, we had already recognized the distinction between open and closed TLDs on a few of our metrics (3.7, 3.9, 3.10 ). But there are several other metrics where might decide to apply to all new gTLDs; apply only to Open TLDs, or bifurcate to have different metrics for open vs closed TLDs. For example, Jeff described how .neustar will be a closed brand TLD so they wouldn't prominently display information about their domain registration policies. Several WG members in Toronto discussed this over the weekend. (Steve DelBianco, John Berard, Jonathan Robinson, Evan Leibovitch, and Olivier Crepin-Leblond) We conceded that In some cases, that doesn't make sense. We concluded that it would be prudent to accept Jeff's invitation to review all our metrics in light of his request. We could have a WG call, then issue a revised advice letter for consideration at the next meetings of ALAC and GNSO. So, at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, John Berard withdrew his motion to endorse our advice letter, explaining that the WG plans to address open/closed TLDs and issue new advice as soon as possible. Jeff Neuman reiterated his earlier comments. Wolfgang Kleinwasser took issue with definition of consumer trust, but offered nothing specific. Steve DelBianco will send around a markup of our advice that we can discuss on our call this Friday 26-Oct at 19:00 UTC. Call logistics will be sent out in the next few days. Best, Jonathan From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> Date: October 11, 2012, 7:52:15 AM PDT To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [council] Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs A number of us have recently been discussing the motion up for a vote next week in Toronto to adopt the Working Group’s draft advice letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition. First, I want to commend the working group on the job that they have done and the meticulous detail incorporated in the letter. I believe that they group did as good of a job as anyone could do to come up with metrics based on their best predictions as to what the future gTLD landscape would look like. At the time that the recommendations were created, and the draft advice letter went out for comment, no one knew the number of applications, types of applications, etc. Now, after the reveal, we have more information about the landscape and believe that the original criteria included in the final advice letter may not be well suited for a large number of gTLD applications (which later will be TLDs). While much of the criteria is extremely relevant towards the open gTLDs, they do not necessarily map well to a large number of the other closed, brand, single-registrant or even geographic based TLDs. Over 1/3 of the applications are for brand TLDs, with many of them being single-registrant TLDs. Some of the criteria included in the measure of consumer choice section of the Final Advice Letter, for example, are not applicable to the brand TLDs and may, in fact, give misleading results when looking at the issue of consumer choice. By way of example, the criteria for consumer choice looks at whether the website clearly discloses the benefits and restrictions of the name space (Section 2.1). This makes sense for open registries, but for a closed TLD (like .neustar), it does not. As a fairly large $2.5 billion public company, if Neustar converted its homepage to http://www.neustar<http://www.neustar/>, we would not put anywhere on our home page the benefits/restrictions of .neustar. As a closed TLD, there would be no other registrants other than Neustar itself and using up valuable space on our homepage to even mention why were are using .neustar just would not make sense. In addition, Section 2.3 (gTLD registry benefits and restrictions should be understandable to registrants and users) and 2.12 (geographic diversity of registrants) would also not be applicable to the closed-TLDs or regional TLDs. There are other examples. Therefore, our recommendation is that the Council consider sending back the letter to the Working Group to revise their advice based on the current gTLD application landscape before passing such advice on to the board. If this means bifurcating the advice based on the type of TLD, that may make some sense as well. We do not want the group to be disheartened, because they did an excellent job with the information that was available at the time. We now know more and believe that although the letter presents an excellent starting point, it needs some additional work. We look forward to discussing this further in Toronto. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office:+1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> /www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Attachment:
Consumer_Metrics_Advice_FINAL_v2.1.1.docx
|