FW: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

["Denise Michel" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Are there any comments/suggested changes before we post for public comment
this draft "ALAC comments for the GNSO's gTLDs Committee"?
I'd like to get this on our website.


Thanks.
Denise

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
>Wendy Seltzer
>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:24 PM
>To: Interim ALAC
>Subject: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft
>
>
>Here's some basic information and (suggested) position statements on
>the new gTLD issues before ICANN.  The GNSO's gTLDs Committee will be
>more likely to consider and incorporate our comments the sooner we
>send them, at latest by the end of April.  (Section II responds to
>the GNSO process.)
>
>Comments welcome.  Thanks!
>--Wendy
>
>There are two distinct issues on the table regarding new gTLDs:
>1. Criteria for introduction of a limited number of sponsored gTLDs
>as part of the Board's "proof of concept" initial round of TLD
>additions
>2. Whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level
>namespace in if so, how to do so.
>
>The At-Large Advisory Committee has been invited to offer comments to
>the GNSO for use in formulating the GNSO's advice to the Board on
>question 2.
>
>Introduction:
>
>At-large Internet users are both domain name registrants and users of
>the domain name system.  As users, they are well served by TLDs that
>are not confusingly similar, enabling them to differentiate the names
>they encounter and minimize typographic or semantic mistakes;  they
>are also served by an inclusive namespace that provides access to a
>wide variety of speakers and information sources. As registrants, the
>"at large" are perhaps the most likely to be underserved by
>community-defined, chartered gTLDs.  Not all individuals are
>necessarily a part of any of these communities, yet they will want
>places to publicize their small businesses, engage in political
>debate, discuss their interests, and host weblogs, to name a few.
>Categorization and eligibility requirements will often act as
>barriers to entry to such registrants.  As a whole, at-large
>registrants are most likely to be served by a range of TLD options
>available to all potential registrants, including a variety of true
>generics for those that do not fit in neat categories.
>
>These interests are compatible; confusion can be minimized without
>narrowly structuring registrations.  They are also compatible with
>ICANN's limited mandate.  ICANN should not be setting itself up as
>judge of the utility or fitness of business plans, but only as a
>technical judge of what is likely to create confusion or interfere
>with the functioning of the domain name system.
>
>
>I. Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored Top-Level Domains
>
>References:
>ICANN Paper
>http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm
>Report on Compliance by Sponsored gTLDs with the Registration
>Requirements of Their Charters
>http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/stld-compliance-report-25feb03.htm
>
>Both the paper and report on existing sponsored TLDs err in focusing
>primarily on exclusion:   Do the sponsored gTLDs represent a limited
>community and adhere to their charters by permitting registrants only
>from within that community?  The question more important  to the
>public's communicative goals, however, is the flip side:  Are there
>people or organizations who are left without logical places to
>register domain names, or who are denied registration in a sponsored
>TLD whose charter they fit?  It is easy to make the error rate
>arbitrarily low by asking questions that examine only one kind of
>error -- gTLDs could block all cybersquatters simply by refusing any
>registrations, but that would hardly serve the point of adding new
>gTLDs.
>
>Instead, the Board should look, in both the sponsored additions and
>in the general question of "structure," to ensuring that all who want
>to establish online presences can obtain domain names without
>interfering with names already assigned.
>
>[add comments on Mueller/McKnight, Solum, Rader proposals]
>
>II.  Whether the Generic Top-Level Namespace Should Be Structured
>
>References:
>Draft 3.1.2 of the ICANN GNSO Council gTLDS committee report ("Draft")
><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/gTLDS-committee-conclusions-v3-1.2.htm>
>
>At this stage, there appears to be general consensus on the GNSO
>gTLDs Committee to advise against "structure" in the first instance.
>As the Draft states, "It was agreed that a future expansion of the
>gTLD name space should take place in such a way that was
>demand-driven and bottom-up and in a way that increased competition
>while avoiding net user confusion and deception. To the extent that
>this report has a set of recommendations, it would seem there is
>support for the idea that the structure of the future gTLD namespace
>should be structured determined in a number of ways primarily by the
>choices of suppliers and end users in the market."    The ALAC
>supports this recommendation.  Market participants, including both
>businesses and non-commercial organizations, are better positioned to
>indicate where new TLDs are needed through demand and willingness to
>supply.  The ALAC supports the proposition that proposal of a name by
>a competent registry/delegant/sponsor provides the minimal
>"differentiation" necessary.  (Draft para. 14)
>
>In order for market determination to be successful, however, ICANN
>must enable a genuine competitive market to develop.  At present,
>there appears to be some tension between market competition and
>desire to protect registrants from the consequences of registry
>failure (Draft paras. 10-12).  The intermediate road ICANN has taken,
>a heavily regulated market (rather than free market or openly
>acknowledged planning), tends to produce false assumptions and
>conclusions about what "the market" will support (and thus to justify
>further planning).    The ALAC supports the Draft's recommendations
>that zone file escrow and transfer arrangements be investigated as
>ways to mitigate registry failure.  The ALAC also recommends further
>examination of separation of the policy and technical roles of
>new-TLD-registries, such as Ross Rader's proposal for distinct
>Delegants (policy) and Operators (technical), see
><http://r.tucows.com/archives/2003/03/13/new_gtlds_part_ii.html>.
>
>Consistent with openness to a variety of names and business models,
>ALAC supports expansion that allows both sponsored and unsponsored
>names.  (Draft para 15)
>
>[Comments on IDNS?]
>
>
>----
>
>Appendix (chronology and references):
>In October 2002, the ICANN CEO's action plan on gTLDs made the
>recommendation below.
>http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm
>
>Part III Recommendation: As ICANN proceeds with its new TLD
>evaluation process  - and, if the Board concurs, with an additional
>round of new sponsored TLDs - this basic question of taxonomic
>rationalization should be addressed within the ICANN process.
>Accordingly, it is my recommendation to the ICANN Board that the DNSO
>and its Names Council be requested to develop and submit its advice
>and guidance on the issue.
>
>
>In December 2002, the Board agreed with the recommendation and
>made the three resolutions below.
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15dec02.htm#AnnualMeetin
>goftheTransitionBoard
>
>Whereas,
>the Board accepted the report of the ICANN New TLD Evaluation Process
>Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) at its meeting on 23 August
>2002;
>
>Whereas, at that meeting the Board instructed the President to
>develop a plan for action for approval by the Board;
>
>Whereas, the
>President presented An Action Plan Regarding New TLDs for discussion
>at the Public Forum in Shanghai on 30 October 2002, and posted that
>Action Plan for public comment on 8 November 2002;
>
>Whereas, comments
>have been received, posted, and evaluated regarding that Action
>Plan;
>
>Whereas, the Action Plan was again discussed at the Public
>Forum in Amsterdam on 14 December 2002; and
>
>Whereas, the Action Plan
>recommends that key recommendations of the NTEPPTF report be
>implemented; that certain questions regarding the future evolution of
>the generic top-level namespace be referred for advice to the GNSO
>described in Article X of the New Bylaws approved in Shanghai on 31
>October 2002 and as further refined at this meeting; and that steps
>be taken towards approval of a limited number of new sponsored
>gTLDs;
>
>-         Resolved [02.150] that the Board authorizes the
>President to take all steps necessary to implement those aspects of
>the NTEPPTF recommendations as specified in the Action Plan;
>
>-
>Resolved [02.151] that the Board requests the GNSO to provide a
>recommendation by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the
>President and the Chair of the GNSO Names Council on whether to
>structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if
>so, how to do so;
>
>-         Resolved [02.152] that the Board directs
>the President to develop a draft Request for Proposals for the
>Board's consideration in as timely a manner as is consistent with
>ICANN staffing and workload for the purpose of soliciting proposals
>for a limited number of new sponsored gTLDs.
>
>
>In February 2003,
>ICANN's general counsel  clarified that the Board asked for the GNSO
>Council to formulate and communicate its views on two separate
>questions. The questions are:
>
>     a.  whether to structure the
>evolution of the generic top level namespace and,
>     b.  if there
>should be structuring, how to do so.
>
>In March 2003, at the ICANN Public Meeting in Rio, the President
>presented a paper:
>Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored Top-Level Domains
>http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm
>
>The ALAC liaison to the GNSO for new gTLD issues intends to offer
>comments to the GNSO before the Council's May 22 final report
>(preferably enough time before for the comments to be discussed and
>incorporated).
>--
>--
>Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx || wendy@xxxxxxx
>Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
>Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html