ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-strategy-draft]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gtld-strategy-draft] Comments on New gTLD Implementaion Strategy

  • To: <gtld-strategy-draft@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gtld-strategy-draft] Comments on New gTLD Implementaion Strategy
  • From: "Ching Chiao" <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:05:24 +0800

Dear ICANN and NTEPPTF,

 

I am very glad to see the work has been done by the NTEPPTF (absolutely
not a good naming strategy), especially the inclusion of the
consideration of IDN on the root-level. It's a good start and ICANN
should encourage all stakeholders to participate in the discussion of
such implementation strategy.

 

I would like to share the following ideas and hope it would be helpful:

1. Who will pay for the work of evaluation? I am assuming that all
existing gTLD and ccTLD will not be happy to pay ICANN for introducing
competitors to the market. I would like to suggest, if I may, that the
new gTLD founder should cover most of the expenses incurred during the
evaluation. It can also be included in the financial criteria of the new
gTLD. 

2. By saying "1", it may be still a good idea to separate "founder" and
"operator". For dot-org, the successor is PIR, but the operator is
Afilias. If ICANN would like to take fully control over the new gTLDs, I
think it's time for ICANN to accept as many as new gTLD proposals, but
only "certified" registry operator (this may include possibly not only
existing gTLD operators, but many good ccTLD operators as well) can
perform registry function for the new gTLDs. ICANN may wish to reserve
the right to review and re-evaluate on those TLDs.

3. By saying "1" and "2", I would like to suggest that there should be
at least one certain period of time annually for ICANN to accept new
gTLD proposals (or separate the periods for sponsored or un-sponsored
ones). There shall be a "Committee" to review all the proposals, and
then all qualified proposals will be opened for bid (by the operators). 

4. By saying "3", the committee is an inclusive one which consists of
professionals and experts from and outside of the ICANN community
(including candidates nominated by NomCom, GAC, ALAC). The committee
will report to the CEO of ICANN since it's his/ her role to execute such
core mission of ICANN. The CEO will then present the report to the ICANN
community and the board for final decision. I am proposing this since
Figure 1 of this paper may take endless time (in ICANN's consensus
building process) to implement a good idea (this equals to killing that
idea) and please remember "time to market" is very important. As one of
the comments addressed, Porsche could be just worthless after 10 years.

5. IDN-- I think we should focus on how to determine "yes or no" for any
new proposal. We all understand that the current IDN standards work well
but the market (or specifically, browser) is not ready. Test program,
though it's not clearly stated in the paper about what exactly it is,
what cost and time will consume, should be performed outside (and prior
to) the evaluation process.

 

Thank you very much and regards,

 

Ching Chiao, TWNIC

 

 

Ching Chiao 

Taiwan Network Information Center (TWNIC)

Tel: +886-2-23411313 ext. 703

Fax: +886-2-23968832

Email:  <mailto:chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Website:  <http://www.twnic.net.tw> www.twnic.net.tw || www.chiao.info 

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>