Comments on New gTLDS

[namecritic@xxxxxxxx]

Comments from: Chris McElroy
        Title: President
 Organization: Kidsearch Network


  1.  After reading the Initial Report, are there any other selection criteria
  which may be helpful for a new top level domain application round?

That ICANN focuses on commercial viability would be nice. Creating dot aero and
dot museum would not be examples of commercially viable gtlds. 

We really need stlds instead. Trademark issues happen as a result of gtlds. 

dot biz and dot info were okay but still not as commercially viable as dot com.


And will you please finally address the need for a legitimate nonprofit tld?
For orgs that can prove they are a nonprofit rather than a tld like dot org
that also allows porn websites and scammers to use it?


  2.  Thinking about the issue of application fees for any new top level domain
  application, is there merit in graduated application fees to assist
  applicants?

Enormous application fees mean you are excluding small business owners from the
process. ICANN's history of not approving an application and then holding back
from refunding application fees means that no small business can apply because
they cannot afford to have that much money tied up for years.


  3.  Taking into account the experiences from the 2000 and 2004 round of new
  top level domains, do you have further comments to make about streamlining
  the application process?

Yes. An applicants business plan is none of ICANN's business. If I apply for a
business license in any state or city in the US, they do not require me to
submit my business plan.

I do not believe it is ICANN's job, nor its area of expertise to approve or
disapprove of anyone's business plan. For example; If I wanted to register and
operate a tld where I gave the domain names away for free as an added value for
other services purchased from my company, I should be allowed to do so as long
as I am "technically" capable of operating a TLD.

Taking out the need to review the business plan streamlines the process and it
eliminates liability for ICANN. If you take it upon yourself to approve an
operator's business plan and they fail, then ICANN can be an "also named" in
any class action lawsuit by holders of the domain names under that TLD.


  4.  Thinking about ICANN's responsibility to ensure competition in registry
  services operation, do you have any additional comments about how to
  encourage applications which would serve needs which are not met by the
  existing top level domains?

ICANN's board and staff has continually rejected the idea anymore tlds are
needed and that there is any demand for them. I believe this is incorrect.

Right now to get any dot com domain, or even dot net or dot org domain, you
have to settle for longer and longer domain names. To say that
greatusedcars.com can compete on an even playing field with cars.com is
ludicrous.

More tlds means more opportunity for registrants to have short, memorable
domain names. This means a level playing field for small business owners and
individuals.

We need to be thinking about the future, not just the now. IPV6 was never
thought to be necessary in the beginning, but ICANN is now addressing that
issue because of the growth of the Internet.

Why wait until there is a problem to try and address it. Create a lot more tlds
in the next round so future users will have a chance to get a viable domain
name for their online business.


  5.  Looking closely at the technical selection criteria section of the
  Report, are there any further comments which would assist with identifying
  appropriate base line technical criteria for new applications?

The technical criteria is fine. Its all of the other considerations that ICANN
needs to get away from, such as policy determinations and business plan
reviews.


  6.  Do you have any further comment to make on the use of the first come
  first served system for processing applications and then whether auctions or
  lotteries are appropriate ways of resolving competition between applications?

Get rid of the sunrise period on all new tlds. Many say creating new tlds means
that companies have to keep registering their names in every tld. Nothing could
be further from the truth.

More than one company holds trademarks that are exactly alike and/or similar to
other trademarks. By having a sunrise period you allow a few companies to
hinder others by registering their name in every new tld that comes out.

What if I register a trademark on Ford Guitars because my name is Ford and I
make guitars. Is it right that you have created a sunrise period so that ford
is taken in every tld in the system? 

Yes I could register fordguitars.whatever instead. But by that token, if
ford.whatever was taken, then ford motor comapny could go get
fordcars.whatever, so with no sunrise period, first-come, first-serve works
just fine.


  7.  Do you have any further views on the kinds of new TLDs that might be
  encouraged? Specifically, do members of the community expect the existing
  differentiation between sponsored, generic, chartered and open TLDs to
  remain?
  

Yes, create sTLDs that match the classes you are able to register trademarks
in. Then if ford had ford.cars and someone else had ford.guitars both
trademarks would have ample tradmark protection.

gTLDs should not be the equivalent of trademarks. Show me a trademark for
someone's company name that is registered in the com trademark class. There is
no such class, the company doesn't manufacture coms, and has no right to
trademark protection there as a result. The only reason it has had protection
in the past is due to ICANN not providing any alternatives that match the
classes that trademarks use.

There would not need to be a UDRP at all if sTLDs were created in this manner.
It would be a clear violation of ford's TM if someone registered ford.cars.