Comments on the Draft new gTLD Application Guidebook

["Paul Tattersfield" <gpmgroup@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sirs,



Thank you for considering my comments on the new gTLD Draft Applicant Guide
Book.

The excellent CRAI report dealing with just one small aspect
(Registry/Registrar separation) of the likely pressures new gTLDs will bring
to the existing regulatory framework has highlighted many significant points
that should be subject to public discussion. I therefore think it would be
very helpful if consultants like CRAI could do similar analysis on other
areas of detail. i.e. for each area of detail examine the impact of
introducing new gTLDs, offer suggested outcomes and request public comments.


Whilst recognizing the current RFP is a draft and "work in progress", it
seems to introduce quite a few unknowns and ambiguities which need to be
clarified before anyone can make substantive comments on the draft as whole.
In light of this hopefully there will be a further chance to comment on the
draft before it is submitted to the board.

It's easy to call for less regulation of markets and complain about
restraint of trade but markets are amoral not moral and as such need
regulating. As we have seen all too clearly in the recent and current
financial markets it is important not to be complacent in the face of
recklessness and greed. At this point in time ICANN is very fortunate in
that designing system for new business areas is a lot easier than trying to
retrospectively modify an existing system through necessity because it was
too loosely constructed at an earlier date.

The last thing ICANN should allow is the creation of a shadow Domain Name
System which provides little benefit for internet communities while enabling
a series of speculative bubbles and investment schemes. Such a system would
inevitably introduce costs and burdens to individual users and organizations
simply trying to go about their day to business and even more worryingly
damage trust in both ICANN and the DNS.

There are already problems effectively regulating the existing DNS system.
Given these problems one needs to ask can the regulatory framework scale to
meet an order of magnitude increase in gTLDs? Even responsible large
registrars do and will continue to push the boundaries wherever those
boundaries are drawn and it seems ICANN will need more tools rather than
less to ensure a level playing field. For example the warehousing of names
using shadow entities and non compliance of the RRA e.g. not permitting
registrants transfer domains to their preferred registrar.



(Using the wording of the RRA to delay the implementation of consensus
policies for as long as possible, amending user agreements and then
subsequently claiming registrants have agreed to breaking the ICANN
consensus polices of their own volition and using the notion that their own
agreements take precedence over those they have agreed with ICANN. But what
can the board actually do if they want to enforce this? It is highly
unlikely given the size of the registrar concerned that the board will or
even could terminate (which seems to be the only sanction available under
the current RRA) the registrar concerned to enforce these transgressions of
the RRA.)

Watching major and on the whole responsible registrars twist and turn to
gain economic advantage even in good economic trading periods shows just how
important it is to have clear unambiguous rules to govern the market even
before the introduction of any new gTLDs.


New gTLDs as proposed are likely to introduce profound and historic change
to the nature of the DNS and I am certain that many do not fully understand
the implications of these changes and just how far reaching these changes
will be. I am sure many of the participants in the actual new gTLD process
know what they have in mind, but these thoughts and details should be
presented and discussed in public so that there can be a consensus developed
from the community on exactly how new gTLDs should move forward thereby
minimizing any adverse impacts on innocent third parties.

Adding a limited number of new gTLDs as and when needed allows for an almost
infinite expansion of the namespace, whereas moving "selected" single
entities, ones with huge marketing budgets for branding purposes eg. .ibm or
.google etc. will, if successful   fundamentally change the nature of the
internet.

One of the reasons for the phenomenal success of the current internet model
is a cost effective single worldwide level playing field.

 If the creation of super brand single entity gTLDs is successful then by
their very success they will disadvantage all other brands, which will in
turn necessitate the other brands into obtaining their own brand gTLD. This
not only places huge additional costs and complexities into doing business
on the internet but also has the paradoxical effect of limiting choice.

(There can only be one .apple At the moment there are 260 or so apple.tld
possible. All the different entities called "Apple" from around the world
can try and work out a way of coexisting without some registrants having to
choose a different or longer name. For many businesses and individuals this
process over the last 15 years has been resolved.
Admittedly .com is the most cherished TLD but introducing new single entity
gTLDs will not for the most part change the preference of .com over all
other existing gTLDs. Further it is unlikely any of the single entity gTLDs
will give up their domains in other existing extensions,  again the new
super brand gTLDs are providing little benefit or innovation to the DNS as a
whole.)

On a side note what happens when these brands merge? Do they have to go
through the whole process again and re-apply for a new gTLD?

The implications from the creation of pure generic gTLDs are even more
profound and risk the creation of monopoly positions. It is simple to make
the statement for allowing open competition and let the market decide, and
on the surface many people will support that notion. Of all the people who
support the opening up of the DNS to allow generic new gTLDs like .search
for example perhaps run by Afilias or Verisign etc. How many of those same
people would show the same enthusiasm if .search was secured by Microsoft?

In most systems, a trademark will be registrable if it is able to
distinguish the goods or services of a party, will not confuse consumers
about the relationship between one party and another, and will not otherwise
deceive consumers with respect to the qualities of the product. On this
point the proposed new gTLD process seems to be divergent with current
Trademark Law.

There are areas where there are pinch points in the supply of domains,
however these seem to be limited to two main areas .com and IDNs. If it were
possible to allow a round of IDN ccTLDs to join the root this would leverage
the existing control framework and at the same time remove bulk of the calls
for expansion. It would also provide a breathing space to allow the new gTLD
processes to be developed to be more inline with how the majority of users
feel would be of benefit to the internet as a whole.

Yours sincerely





Paul Tattersfield
Grange Project Management


In summary:

1)  The commissioning of reports similar to the CRAI Registry/Registrar
separation
     report to look at the impact of adding any new gTLDs.

2)  A further comment period once a more complete RPF has been prepared.

3)  If not carefully managed new gTLDs will damage confidence in ICANN & the
DNS.

4)  Tighter contracts with wording that it is impossible to misconstrue.

5)  Much more thought needs to be given to contractual obligations and
sanctions.

6)  The destruction of the internet's DNS level playing field for all
entrants, with the
     creation of single entity super brand TLDs.

7)  Damage the most successful universal branding in the world with the
creation of a costly two tier DNS.

8)  Effectively limiting further expansion of the DNS just to launch a
process at this time.

9)  The creation of monopoly positions with generic new gTLDs something that
would
      not be permitted under equivalent Trademark Law.

10) Consideration given to allowing an interim IDN ccTLD round prior to any
future new
      gTLD rounds.