[gtld-council] String contention
- To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gtld-council] String contention
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:34:45 +1100
There was further discussion about how to manage string contention.
Here is a summary of the outcome of that discussion. Note that further
work will be required to improve the drafting.
If there is contention for strings:
1. Applicants may resolve contention between themselves within a
- this would happen once the strings were posted for public review
2. Applicants move into 3rd party mediation
- applicants would have the ability to agree to work together to use the
same string, or choose different strings - but these different strings
would need to be formally posted and go through the full range of string
3A .org and .net style process, incorporate showing level of support
from the community of users relating to that string, diversity, and
differentiation - and applicants pay for additional evaluation
(e.g bank, library, police, Maori, republicanparty)
This option would be appropriate if there are existing institutions that
have existed for at least 5 years that represent a community that is
closely aligned to the string. The intent is that the applicants would
move into a more extensive process similar to that used for the
competitive processes for .org and .net. Applicants would pay a fee
to undergo this competitive review process, and submit more detailed
information. An external evaluator would provide a report against
similar criteria as used for .org and .net including support from the
community of users that the string was intended to serve.
Given the extra cost both in terms of an applicant's expenses to produce
more detailed information and build support within the affected
community, and the fee that would need to be paid to ICANN to cover the
cost of evaluation, the incentive would be to resolve the issue as per 1
and 2 above.
The intent is also to find an external party that would be willing to
make a decision in this area, with the applicants agreeing to abide by
that decision. If this is not possible, then the ICANN Board would
need to decide as it did for .org and .net.
3B "Auction" for strings where there are not existing institutions
related to the string (e.g web, blog, ecommerce, superheros, loans,
Applicants that fall into the category described in 3A above, could
elect to use an auction process. An auction could well be a cheaper
process for applicants that 3A above. Strings that do not fall into
category 3A above would be subject to an auction process. Applicants
would need to pay a non-refundable fee to become a participant in the
auction, to ensure that there is an incentive to resolve contention
through 1 and 2 above.
Any proceeds from the auction that are in excess of the costs of running
the new gTLD process could be allocated to an ICANN reserve fund
proportional to its current operating expenses, or allocated to a trust
fund for the purposes of initiatives to improve security of the DNS
system. Any allocation of funds would be consistent with the legal
requirements for a tax-exempt, non-profit organisation.
4. If the options above are not successful, the ICANN Board may be used
to make a final decision, using internal and external advice.