RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Jointly Submitted Survey Concept

["Vika Mpisane" <vika@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael, Milton & Avri,

 

I?ve just had a quick run through the document (seeing it?s weekend), and
I?m really grateful for this piece of work! 

 

You?ve presented good scenarios that, I think, will help direct our efforts
more effectively. I?ve been following discussions in the past week & some
good ideas have been presented, but it was becoming difficult to keep track
with the flurry of emails. I think your document nicely captures most, if
not all, of the scenarios already presented. 

 

It could even be more helpful if the document could identify which scenarios
are already under discussion (e.g. those in the CRA report, those in the
different DAG version & those outside CRA & DAG, such as the IPC & gNSO
business constituency submissions).

 

Regards,

 

Vika Mpisane

.ZA DNA

+27 11 275 0082

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: 26 March 2010 03:33 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Jointly Submitted Survey Concept

 

Hello All:

 

In an effort to foster a constructive dialogue within the group, the
following is a survey jointly submitted by myself, Avri Doria and Milton
Mueller. The  impetus for this communication in part is a  need to "think
outside the box" given the broad/ambiguous wording of the ICANN Board
Resolution. We believe the proposed survey could initially be completed by
the Working Group members and then perhaps by the broader ICANN community to
discuss a broad range of innovative distribution models within the domain
name marketplace. We believe this survey provides a means to foster
meaningful discussion, not in the abstract, but in clear terms to perhaps
help the group identify some ideas, principles and philosophies which may
provide a basis for moving forward as we evaluate potential options.

 

While ICANN has repeated heralded this new gTLD process as promoting
innovation and competition, the  model for how domain names will be
registered and used remained mired in a rather 1999 registry-registrar
dichotomy.  While that model worked in breaking up a legacy monopoly and
spurring innovation and competition in the marketplace, there is a need for
some constructive dialog on whether that legacy model scales in tomorrow?s
marketplace. 

 

Listed below are a list of hypothetical new TLDs and the proposed
distribution structure that these hypothetical TLD may wish to use. 

 

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The use of specific companies names, TLD strings and
fact patteRNs are MERELY HYPOTHETICAL and designed to stimulate discussion
within the BROADER ICANN community about potential new and innovatIVE models
for the DNS.

 

In responding to this survey, respondents are asked to rank each proposed
hypothetical TLDs on a scale to 1-5 using the following criteria:

 

1 (no concerns ? the proposed  benefits clearly outweigh the risks); 

2 (some concern - but the benefits outweigh the risks, and adequate
safeguards should be able to address any potential harm)

3 (reservation ? unclear if benefits can outweigh the risks, and if
safeguards will be able to address the potential harms)

4 (strong reservation ? doubtful that benefits can outweigh the risks, and
that safeguards would be able to address the potential harms)

5 (opposition ? the risks clearly outweigh the potential benefits)

 

Note: Several of the hypothetical TLDs in this survey propose a truly
vertically  integrated model in which registries would be able to provide
?direct?  domain name registration services to registrants, e.g. no use of
ICANN accredited registrars. In any model in which this vertical integration
model is proposed, it is explicitly implied that any registrant safeguards
/obligations provided for by the RAA would be incorporated into the end
registrant agreement by the Registry.

 

 

Hypothetical #1

 

American Express seeks to apply for a .AMEX TLD. They wish to issue second
level domains that directly relate to their client?s merchant
number/terminal ID to be used in connection with a variety of proposed
security/trust enhancements. These domain names/unique identifiers are
non-transferrable. Because of American Express?s existing contractual
relationship with these merchants, American Express would like to directly
register and maintain these domain names within the registry database as
part of its normal customer account interface. American Express submits that
there is no need (value) for it to become an ICANN accredited registrar and
that providing other ICANN accredited registrars access to the registry
system would pose a security risk since it would be integrated into its
financial transaction network.

 

 

Hypothetical #2

 

The National Basketball Association wishes to apply for .NBA TLD which it
will use in connection with normal business operations.  The NBA wants to
directly register/maintain within the registry a limited number of domain
names (< 1,000) in connection with normal operations, e.g. commissioner.nba;
draft.nba, etc.  However, the NBA proposes to require all NBA sponsors (e.g.
Nike, Gatorade) and any current/former players (e.g. LEBRON.NBA,
JORDAN.NBA)that would be permitted to register second level domain names do
so through an ICANN accredited registrar. For security proposes the NBA
would like to impose an addition accreditation process for all ICANN
accredited registrars before accessing the registry, similar to the
authority that all sponsored TLDs currently have today.

 

 

Hypothetical #3

 

Disney secures a .KIDS TLD and proposes to reserve a limited number (<
2,500) of premium names (e.g. TV.KIDS) exclusively for its use. Disney
agrees to register all domain names within the TLD through ICANN accredited
registrars. Disney, however, seeks to impose an additional accreditation
process requiring registrars to immediately take down domain names with
content that Disney deems inappropriate.  

 

 

Hypothetical #4

 

The ccNSO decides that ASCII and extended ASCII names will not be permitted
as ccTLDs.  The Åland Islands (.ax) wishes to have a more intuitive TLD
string for Internet users to associate with the island.  Their ccTLD
operator (with full approval of the government) apply for a gTLD and propose
using their existing direct ccTLD registration methods, which may or may
involved ICANN accredited registrars.

 


 

Hypothetical #5 

 

The Sámi people seek to apply for .sámi community TLD and successfully
secure the approval of the relevant authorities. In their new gTLD
application, the Sámi people identifies the registry operator of the .SE
ccTLD as their proposed backend registry infrastructure provider. In their
business plan, the Sámi people explain how they wish to provide domain name
registration services through an online interface made available to the
following ccTLD operators (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia) as well as
through ICANN accredited registrars. As a community gTLD all registrants
will be required to comply with the additional contract terms incorporated
into the registry agreement as per the original application.    

 

 

Hypothetical #6 

 

Comcast applies for .COMCAST TLD to provider subscribers of its high speed
internet service with a personalized second level domain name registration.
This free domain name is integrated into the existing  free email and web
hosting services that Comcast provides all of its customers. Comcast would
like to directly register and maintain these domain names within the
registry as part of its normal customer account interface. Comcast submits
that there is no need (value) for it to become an ICANN accredited
registrars and that there is no need to provide other ICANN accredited
registrars access to its registry system.

 

Hypothetical #7 

 

Facebook applies for a .FACEBOOK TLD and decides to provide members with the
option of  a personalized second level domain names to be used exclusively
in connection with FaceBook?s existing service offerings. In order to
provide and maintain its members with an integrated user experience, all
domain names in the TLD will be registered and maintained exclusively
through a separate Facebook subsidiary that is an ICANN accredited
registrar. 

 

Hypothetical #8 

 

eNom seeks to apply for .WEB TLD and create a new social networking site to
compete with FaceBook and MySpace. This business plan involves giving away
domain names for free through its eNom affiliated registrar and to reserve
premium domain names such as dating.web, sports.web, etc. for its exclusive
use (e.g. would not be made available for general registration). Unlike
Facebook which prohibits the transfer of a user account/screen between
parties, eNom seeks to develop a secondary market similar to domain names
and allows for .WEB domain names (screen names/user ids) to be sold and
transferred between parties. eNom proposes to permit all ICANN accredited
registrars to provide domain name registration services within this TLD. 

 

Hypothetical #9 

 

New York City applies for a .NYC TLD. In response to recent legal decisions
in which domain names have been subject to the jurisdictions of foreign
courts based solely on the presence of the ICANN accredited registrar within
that jurisdiction, New York City?s legal department wants to ensure that New
York City is the venue for all legal disputes involving .NYC domain names.
To achieve this important public policy goal, New York City has selected a
vendor that will host the main registry database within the city, and wants
to limit registration services to only those ICANN accredited registrars
with offices within the city. 

 

 

Hypothetical #10

 

The International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) applies for
a .GAY TLD. In an attempt to protect .GAY registrants from unwanted
persecution and/or criminal charges in those countries where homosexuality
is a crime, the registry operator proposes a registry proxy registration
service in which registrars would have limited access to the underlying
whois data.  The Registry Operator seeks to deny access to any ICANN
accredited registrars that will not adhere to the terms of the Registry
proxy registration service.

 

 

Hypothetical #11 

 

Apple secures a .MUSIC TLD.  This TLD was secured via an auction after other
proposed community applications failed to meet the appropriate community
threshold criteria (14 points). Apple reserves a limited number of premium
domain names (< 5,000) for general use, however, it agrees to a use ICANN
accredited registrars when these domain names are activated. Apple intends
to make domain name registration services available through all ICANN
accredited registrars, however, registration will only be made available to
those subscribers that have an account with iTunes.  Because these domain
names will be associated with a specific iTunes subscriber, the domain names
will not be transferable.  

 

 

Hypothetical #12 

 

Google applies for a .BUZZ TLD and intends to provide subscribers with free
domain names that can be used as a portal for Google?s various online
services (gMail, cloud service, news, maps, etc.).  These domain names would
only be provided to existing Google subscribers, and the domain names would
not be transferable.  Because there is no proposed portability of these
domain names, Google proposes to use its current ICANN Registrar
accreditation as the sole/exclusive registrar for these domain names. 

 

 

Hypothetical #13 

 

Research in Motion applies for a .RIM TLD. It is the intention of the
registry to provide every Blackberry device with a second level domain
corresponding to the Personal Identification Number (PIN) assigned to each
phone. Research in Motion proposes to register/maintain these domain names
directly in the registry database, and provide the end user and their mobile
service provider of choice an interface to use/configure the domain name.
Because these domain names are uniquely linked to each phone and these
domain names are non-transferable, Research in Motion sees no value/utility
in the use of ICANN accredited registrars.

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2770 - Release Date: 03/27/10
09:32:00