RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Niche TLDs

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
The theme is the following:
Under which circumstances would people feel safe in allowing vertical 
integration for a TLD that serves a small community, like a cultural, 
linguistic, geographic community?

>From my perspective, and I think a lot of others in my stakeholder group, 
>there are many circumstances that would justify this.
The most basic one is simply that the small community TLD doesn't wish to use 
registrars. I use the word "wish" in its most literal sense. Absent market 
power, I see no reason for any small clg TLD to be required to use third 
parties to distribute their product. I am sure them some will choose to use 
reigstrars and that others would prefer not to. I see no reason for ICANN - or 
this group - to make that choice for them

 *   There should be declared criteria to delimit the community, and adherence 
to these criteria will be audited by ICANN.
This pushes us back to "sponsored domains." No, please, no. The real lesson 
from the .xxx fiasco and the 2004-5 round, for those who care to be receptive 
to it, is that _any_ fool can define some boundary for a "community" and use it 
as an excuse to get a TLD. My favorite was the .tel domain, which presented 
itself as a sponsored around the "community of people who want to list their 
contact information under the .tel domain." Another problem with this approach 
is that it requires ICANN to be verifying such nebulous things as membership in 
a community. No, this would be a mistaken path to go down.

 *   The registry will be operated as a non profit for the benefit of the 
community.
While I have mixed feelings about this requirement, at least it is meaningful, 
easily verifiable and doesn't do any harm. So I could live with it.
*  There is a maximum number of SLDs, passed which the registry loses its 
"niche" status..
A flat, simple size limit is  probably the best way to enforce this as an 
exception. It is relatively easy to measure, objective, and completely negates 
any "economic harm" argument that protectionist registrars might wish to mount. 
Ideally, this would be the only limitation but a combination of this with 
nonprofit should address any concerns about the exception being gamed by 
commercial actors.

There might be interesting questions, like:

 *   Will they be allowed to use the services of one registrar, selected by 
them, or not?
Why not?

 *   What is the maximum number opf names under the TLD?
Let's take .cat as our model and say 50,000