ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

  • To: "Denise Michel" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft
  • From: "Dr Xue Hong" <hongxue@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:17:15 +0800

In respect of new "IDNgTLDs", I've discussed briefly with Wendy.

My suggestion is:

"Different from ordinary new gTLDs evaluation, any evaluation of IDNgTLDs
should ensure the participation of  the language community that would
primarily use and be affected by the IDN policy."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Denise Michel" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Interim ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 3:43 AM
Subject: FW: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

> 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
> >
> >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
> >
> >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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>