Re: Re: [alac] new gTLDs

[denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

--------------------------------------------------
Here is a message for you from http://web2mail.com
The easy way to read and send POP email on the web
--------------------------------------------------

According to the schedule, it seems that it would be useful if the ALAC had an 
initial statement by April 10 (3rd gTLD Cmt. phone conference and "alignment on 
consensus view, preparation of preliminary report").

I'm working with ICANN to get an initial alac website up with a sorted/indexed 
comment forum within the next week.  If this is done, the ALAC can soon send 
out information and a solicitation for input on new gTLDs (we have access to a 
substantial "At-Large" email list).  This will enable the ALAC to develop input 
that factors in some comments from the At Large community, and the additional 
time will give ALAC members an opportunity to get up to speed on this issue.

Denise




> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:20:18 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >I'd like to get a sense of whether the ALAC wants to comment on either the 
> >substantive issues of namespace structuring or the procedural issues of how 
> >at-large should be involved with the substantive discussion going forward.
> 
> I think that the ALAC should comment, but as we do not have time to do
> it now, your approach to listen and report could be fine for now.
> However, we could maybe try to draft a submission (even if late) and
> to send it in the next few days.
> 
> Personally, I think that there should be a complete reversion of the
> approach that ICANN has had in the past. It should not be "ICANN
> decides that the time has come to create N new TLDs, so it puts out a
> call for proposals"; it should be "there is an entity which would like
> to create a new TLD, so ICANN should examine the request and, unless
> there is a valid reason to reject it, it should approve it". Thus I
> think that ICANN should create a sort of "permanent new TLD process"
> through which anyone at any time may submit proposals for new TLDs.
> 
> While it is true that there are considerations and safeguards to be
> made about new TLDs being launched and then failing, I think that the
> market will judge whether the new TLD really has a reason to exist or
> not (or whether new "competing" TLDs have a reason to be launched). If
> not, its numbers will possibly be so low that either the TLD may be
> safely dropped or it will be possible to find an already existing
> registry which, having other successful TLDs already up and running,
> can afford to maintain the existing registrations without significant
> marginal cost.
> 
> The only reasons to avoid to launch a new gTLD (with 3 or more
> characters, not to be confused with ccTLDs) could be confusion with
> another existing TLD, geopolitical issues (eg .cat for Catalunya - I
> think GAC should have veto power on these requests), or flaws in the
> technical plans; also there should be some technical and policy
> requirements (for example that the TLD is actually global, ie
> registration is allowed independently from the country of the
> registrant). But ICANN should not judge the business or the business
> chances of anyone wishing to establish a new enterprise, nor impose
> requirements on things such as sponsored vs unsponsored, IP policies,
> cost of registration etc. There should be a clear and finite list of
> requirements and once a proposal meets them ICANN should have to
> approve it.
> 
> Also, non-profit entities should be able to apply for new TLDs at a
> very low fee, ie at the cost recovery level (and $50K is not cost
> recovery unless someone can document the opposite).
> 
> Please let's discuss this as I think that we should really prepare a
> statement on new TLDs before Rio (or in Rio, if there's time, but I
> guess there's not).
> -- 
> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
>