Re: [alac] Specific comments on new gTLDs draft

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good !!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Interim ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: [alac] Specific comments on new gTLDs draft


> The GNSO gTLDs Committee final draft conclusions has been posted at
>
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030509.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v4.html
>
> (just a prettier HTML version of what I'd already circulated).
>
> I am still concerned that this draft strays from answering the
> questions asked into unnecessarily detailed structural criteria, even
> as it claims to report a consensus that no a priori structure is
> desirable.  I think the end result of such detail will be to slow and
> limit introduction of new TLDs.  I also disagree substantively with
> several of the proposed criteria.
>
> I would propose sending the message below to the gTLDs committee.
>
> --Wendy
>
> ---
>
> The ALAC supports the draft's conclusion that "expansion of the gTLD
> namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the
> interested parties to ICANN"; that "there should be no pre-determined
> list of new names that putative registries would bid for"; and that
> "expansion should be demand-driven".
>
> Beyond that basic conclusion, however, the draft's specifications of
> objectives or criteria have from the ALAC's perspective moved in the
> wrong direction since the last draft.  The expansion in scope
> concerns us on both procedural and substantive levels.
>
> We continue to believe that ICANN should simply oversee development
> of a genuine competitive market for domain name services.  Basing
> market entry on a minimal and objective no-harm evaluation is key to
> achieving this goal. While we understand the Council's desire to give
> more than a one-word answer, parts of the expanded answer lean toward
> regulating this nascent market more than seems desirable.
>
> The newest draft appears to conflate "substitutability" with
> "confusing similarity," and thus endorses anticompetitive
> prohibitions on similarity in the name of preventing confusion.
> Instead, these restrictive criteria would deny Internet users the
> widest range of options for name registration and deny market
> participants the chance to compete fully with incumbents.  We have
> trust in the ability of Internet users to differentiate among names
> serving similar markets.
>
> In the light of these principles, we offer the following comments on
> the substance of some of the criteria:
>
> * Criterion 4, "An easily understood relationship must exist between
> a new gTLD and its stated purpose": The notion of "easily understood"
> is a function of the entity trying to understand the relationship.
> When used in an evaluation, this criterion would invite subjective
> judgment.  It seems more appropriate to leave this question for the
> market to answer -- *after* a TLD has been introduced. Further, we
> would emphasize that a TLD's "stated purpose" could also mean the
> generic "open to any use."
>
> * Criterion 6, "Future names should add-value to the domain name
> system." As a key objective of the entire process, addition of future
> names should not diminish the value of the domain name system.
> Individual prospective names, however, should not be scrutinized for
> their added value. Once more, subjective judgment would be involved
> on a question which is more appropriately left for the market to
> answer.
>
> * Criterion 8 seems to suggest that incumbent TLD operators should
> have the ability to veto competitors addressing a segment of the same
> or a similar market, or to at least dictate competitors' policies, if
> these competitors use "translations or transliterations" of the
> incumbent's TLD string.  We fail to see the benefit of this criterion
> to the public at large.  To the contrary, it seems to unduly
> strengthen the position of incumbent operators over new market
> participants, thereby damaging competition.
>
> * Criterion 11 seems to suggest that incumbent sponsors should have
> privileged access to market segments which would be complementary to
> the markets they are serving now.  This criterion would, in the case
> of sponsored TLDs, strengthen the role of incumbents even beyond what
> is suggested in point 8, and so the same concerns as above apply.
>
> * Criterion 12 seems to suggest that new TLD proposals should be
> designed to address markets which, if possible, do not overlap with
> those served by incumbent TLD operators.  Once more, we reject this
> criterion as being anti-competitive and fail to see any benefit it
> might have to the public at large.
>
> * Concerning the draft's additional considerations on business
> continuity, we recommend that continuity planning be seen as an
> opportunity to permit easier entry (because it would alleviate
> problems attendant on registry failure), not to further restrict new
> entrants.
> --
> --
> 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