Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few comments on GNSO gTLDs V.3

I celebrate the principle that  "...a future expansion 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..." assuming
that "demand-driven" means what users want and not (only) what industry
thinks it would be profitable. In an other words, new adittions should
contemplate both feasability and desireability.

"...We do not oppose and may often favor the creation of new TLDs that are
sponsored and restricted. But many users have no interest in or need for
authenticated and restricted domains. That is why there are thousands of
times more registrations in open domains than in restricted domains..."
(Mueller & Mc Knight).

It really doesn't make any sense to argue on how many new TLDs are added, if
the user will not use them. The point is: If we are willing to add new TLDs,
these should be structured in response to user needs and demand. The first
criteria should be "Users want it and it doen't harm". Plus, economic
feasability. As it has been said here, the process of adding new TLDs should
be a routine business desicion.

ICANN should ensure that the ASCII translation or transliteration of any new
IDN gTLD should not be confusingly similar to an existing generic ASCII gTLD
or vice-versa, so as to avoid confusing net users.  As Hong noticed, " the
existence of conflicting names has already caused widespread user confusion
and new opportunities for cybersquatting, both of which are contradictory to
the interests of the individual users (both the registrants and consumers)."

It is uf utmost importance to assure the international non-english speaking
community a wide level of participation in the discussion of IDN gTLDs. The
draft in analisys don't contemplate this issue, and ICANN must ensure user
participation in this discussion, beyond ALAC comments and proposals.

Regards,

Sebastian