Re: [alac] new gTLDs

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The council had earlier suggested that we might comment on the reports made 
by the constituencies.  Since most of those aren't in yet but are expected 
in another week, we could probably give our input around the time we're in Rio.

Discussion on today's call started from this summary of Business and 
Non-Commercial constitutencies' reports [my comments are the non-quoted 
parts interspersed]:

> Points of common ground between the BC and the NC on new gTLDs
> - a demand-driven approach.
> - a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested 
> communities/registries to ICANN.

[The general agreement was that names shouldn't come from above, but be 
selected from among actual expressions of interest.  So one role for 
At-Large Structures / RALOs could be to coordinate the public demands. ]

> - names can be commercial or non-commercial as demand dictates.
> - names assigned upon request of a technically qualified registry* (*BC 
> would add a sponsor also).
> - one registry can operate multiple domains.

[Issues of balancing technical qualification requirements and 
competition.  Discussion also favored making new gTLDs chartered to a 
registry, but not owned by the registry, so that names and WHOIS data would 
survive failure of the specific registry and couldn't be sold off in 
bankruptcy.]

> - names in any language possible.
>
> Points with a different approach:
> NC - maximum 30 new names per year.
> BC - no limit.
>
> NC - sponsored and unsponsored OK.
> BC - sponsored only.
>
> NC - synchronous requests determined by auction.
> BC - first come first served, nature of the sponsor may be deciding factor.
>
> NC - names need not be distinct from one another.
> BC - names have to be distinct from one another.

[There was agreement in principle that new names could provide competition 
for existing names, but should not introduce confusion.  The critical 
issue, of course, is how to distinguish between the two.
There was basic consensus against typographical confusion, e.g. .com versus 
.comm, even if the latter were earmarked for "communications."  There was 
less agreement around possible semantic confusion:  some participants said 
that each new name should serve only a distinct segment; others said that 
so long as the names were audibly/visibly distinct, multiple names could 
serve the same market without causing confusion.

I think this is an important area for further discussion.  I agree with 
Esther that "scarcity of attention" is real, but not on where it kicks 
in.  I think .biz, .shop, and .sale could co-exist, for example.

Finally, in fields where there is already a natural differentiation (e.g., 
public libraries by geographic location), it would be useful for the 
namespace to enable registrants to reflect that taxonomy online.]

> NC - registries must be linked to the name.
> BC - registry need NOT be linked to only one name.
>
> NC - any name OK.
> BC - names must meet six principles.


--Wendy


At 11:24 PM 03/06/2003 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2003-03-06 22:21:07 +0000, Denise Michel wrote:
>
> > 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 don't think that the council would be too excited about getting
> any new positions at that point of the process...  The point of
> letting us participate in task forces is that we can provide input
> as early in the process as possible.  The 10 April call will,
> according to the schedule, probably be the last "policy-making" call
> of the gTLD committee, so any input should probably be provided at
> least a week before that call -- or earlier, if possible.
> Practically, that means "ASAP."
>
> Anyway, I suppose that Wendy can tell us more after today's call, so
> I'll shut up now. ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/