ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


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

Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

  • To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft
  • From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:32:10 -0700

Thanks Vittorio, a few comments below:

At 10:35 AM 04/26/2003 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
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:
...

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.

Yes, I agree, the addition of new TLDs should soon become a routine business decision, not an exceptional occurrence.



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.

Good point. I would add this to the discussion of applicant qualification. Financial qualifications and entry fees can be barriers to entry of new and smaller participants, as well as to non-profits. While fees may be necessary to discourage spurious applications, if ICANN adopts minimal criteria, it will not be costly to evaluate applications against them, so fees can be low and still cover costs. ICANN should consider a second, lower fee scale for non-profit applicants.


>I. Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored Top-Level Domains
>
...
>
>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.

Imprecise language. On second thought, I'd just cut the "without interfering with names already assigned." (I was thinking more of cases like foo.com and fo0.com.)



>II.  Whether the Generic Top-Level Namespace Should Be Structured
...

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.

The language I was quoting suggested to me that no differentiation or structure was actually being recommended. So long as someone is willing to supply a TLD, that indicates the supplier's belief that there was demand for the TLD, and the proposer should be allowed to test that demand in the market. Every TLD has a natural monopoly in the SLDs registered under it, but ICANN policy should not extend that monopoly any further.


 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.

No, I think the proposal was specifically aimed to eliminate that problem. Applicants could describe a proposed gTLD, whose registry would be handled by $Operator, where $Operator could later be filled from among the set of entities who had met a set of minimal technical qualifications (and further, that $Operator could be changed without ICANN involvement).


--Wendy


-- 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/




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy