Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:24:09 -0700, you wrote:

>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 would propose to add that, sooner or later (but the sooner the
better), the process of creation of new TLDs should become an ordinary
one: simply, applicants should submit their application for ICANN to
do its technical judgements as exposed above, and if technical
requirements are met, the new TLD should be created.

I would like to say somewhere that there should be much easier access
to making applications, as more applications mean more TLDs and more
competition - and this is basically the ultimate target for
individuals. The fee for applications should be much lower than in the
past round of new TLDs, and should just cover the cost of the initial
examination, perhaps even not fully; the rest of the costs should be
paid only by approved applicants. Also, reduced fees should be applied
to non-profit applicants.

>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.

Does this mean that if we establish .xyz the owner of foo.com has
priority over foo.xyz? What do you mean by "interfering with names
already assigned"? I might have missed it.

>
>[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)

It is not clear to me which kind of differentiation we are talking
about. Is it just about not making confusion between similar strings,
or is it about differentiation in target and characteristics of the
TLD? If it is the latter, does it mean that we should not have had
.biz since we already had .com for commercial enterprises? I am a
little scared that some may think at "differentiation" as "each
existing TLD is allowed a monopoly in its own market segment",
something I'd not like at all. Perhaps we should add some words about
this.

>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>.

Agree as long as this does not become an instrument to *require*
applicants to use already existing registry operators or to get
accreditation before applying (it should be the other way round; first
you apply, then, if you're willing to establish your own registry
operations, your application is approved provided that you can get
accreditation as a registry operator, then you get it and you are
allowed to start selling domains). Otherwise you risk creating a
cartel.
-- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------