Comments on GNSO Initial Report & Questions

["Paul Tattersfield" <pault@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments from Paul Tattersfield

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

New gTLDs ideally should be community driven and priority should be given
where there is demonstrable need. Without this community need little value
is likely to be added to the DNS .cat is a quiet success.

IDNs whilst more complicated to implement are much needed to keep the
unified root, and priority in the early rounds should be given to their
implementation.  

It may be worth considering dedicating the first future round solely to IDNs



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? 
No because the other costs of running a gTLD are likely to be much greater
and if the applicant is struggling with the ICANN fee then there may be some
question as to the viability of the proposed gTLD.

 
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? 

The internet is becoming increasingly important in the everyday life of more
and more people. It is therefore important that the wishes of the world's
governments play an increasing role in the selection of new gTLDs. .xxx
demonstrated the problems that occur when too much weight is placed
technical and business considerations alone. The GAC needs to be much more
carefully consulted. 


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? 

How much extra competition is provided at registry level if the new
applicants simply outsource back-end services to existing players? 


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? 


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? 

The sunrise period needs to be carefully considered. The recent launch of
the non ICANN .eu tld demonstrated how speculators find enough value in
gaining a domain name from the sunrise period that they are prepared to
setup limited companies within the qualifying zone and acquire trademarks
from the least rigorous jurisdiction in order to meet the sunrise qualifying
criteria. 80% of the domains from the sunrise we checked in .eu were gained
using such trademarks (often in the format "trade&mark").


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? 

Community need rather than registry profit should be the overriding factor
for approval. 

Yours sincerely,


Paul Tattersfield