<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [alac] ALAC concerns re: [gtld-com] Draft Final report gTLD committee
- To: Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] ALAC concerns re: [gtld-com] Draft Final report gTLD committee
- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 20:39:22 -0700
Hi Erick,
I think we make a few points related to consumer protection:
1. Our comments advocate opening the namespace to market competition, which
we'd expect to increase selection and lower prices, both of which benefit
consumers as purchasers of domain names and as Internet users.
2. Our earlier comments and the gTLD Committee draft recommend avoiding
names that appear confusingly similar to existing names, and thus that
could easily be used to confuse or mislead Internet users.
3. Business continuity planning, such as escrow requirements that would
enable another registry to take over if one failed, can help protect
consumers from losing a domain name due to registry failure. (I don't
necessarily think that discussion is appropriate in answering the board's
question about "structuring the namespace," but it is something I'd suggest
we support in the appropriate process later.)
Beyond that, I would recommend that ICANN stay out of the business of
protecting consumers from bad *uses* of domain names, leaving that to
governments. I don't want to see ICANN regulating Internet content.
Did you have something else in mind?
Thanks.
--Wendy
At 08:11 PM 05/18/2003 -0500, Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote:
Hi Wendy
maybe i don't read good, but i don't read nothing about "consumer
protection" in the documents, maybe as At-large rep. we can sugest
something in this way.
Erick
At 04:54 p.m. 16/05/2003 -0700, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
The ALAC supports the latest 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 ALAC finds that the
specification of objectives or criteria has moved in the wrong direction
since the last draft. The expansion in scope concerns us on both
procedural and substantive levels. Procedurally, the lack of public
comment is troubling, particularly as public input might have prompted
reconsideration of some of the concrete issues we raise below.
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 current expanded answer lean toward
regulating this nascent market more than seems desirable.
The latest draft appears to conflate "substitutability" with "confusing
similarity," and thus would endorse anti-competitive 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 this light, 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, damaging competition.
* Criterion 11 seems to suggest that incumbent sponsors should have
privileged access to market segments that would complement 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. This criterion too appears anti-competitive,
rather than to the benefit of 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 to registry failure), not to further restrict new entrants.
Thank you,
--Wendy Seltzer
Interim At-Large Advisory Committee, gTLDs Committee Liaison
--
--
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
>>>
|