[alac] New gTLDs, draft 2
At 06:26 PM 05/03/2003 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: ACTION POINTS after May 3rd conference calls <Admin> If there are no objections by ALAC members, I would like to post this to the GNSO Council's gTLD list Monday. For changes from the earlier version, see <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/twiki/bin/rdiff/Sandbox/NewGTLDs> (anyone is free to add to the Wiki draft at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/twiki/bin/view/Sandbox/NewGTLDs by clicking the "Edit" link at the bottom of the page) </Admin> ALAC Statements on New gTLDs, Draft 2. 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.
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.
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, users and suppliers, 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 as much "differentiation" as is necessary. (Draft para. 14) Every TLD has a natural monopoly in the SLDs registered under it, but ICANN policy should not extend that monopoly any further. Put slightly differently a name should be acceptable within any gTLD structure if users want it and it does no harm to the domain name system. In order for market determination to be successful, 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) Along with Milton Mueller and Lee McKnight, "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, "The post-.COM Internet," http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/NewTLDs-MM-LM.pdf IDNs: Any evaluation of IDNgTLDs (internationalized domain name generic TLDs) should ensure participation in the linguistic review for confusion by the language community that would primarily use and be affected by the IDN policy. [The ALAC plans to discuss IDNs in more detail in a separate document.]
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#AnnualMeetingoftheTransitionBoard 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).
|