Hello fellow Netizens, ICANN, and all other interested individuals,First off let
me express my support for the .web (from IOD) gTLD. They have a "stable" registry
in-place already. I have chosen to register my .web domain name in hopes that
it will go live on the root "A" server someday. What better testbed than this
company (IOD) that has proven themselves since 1996. Yes they could have tried
to push the pioneer preference (which I think they have a very good argument) however
they have participated in all IANA and ICANN meetings, been a part of the process
"pre and post" "postel" and have devoted the last 6 years maintaining a system so
that I as a consumer may be able to build a business around my .web domain.
It's totally about the consumer!!! This should be your mandate (ICANN) in Yokohama.
One question that ICANN should be asking businesses or individuals that would like
to set up a registry is "How long have you been involved in the DNS issues before
us"..."Have you sat on any (IANA or ICANN working groups) or published any writings
concerning the introduction to new gTLDs....That will really tell you who is actually
interested in the consumer (as IOD has shown)...If they cannot answer the questions
I listed above they don't belong in my opinion..and don't get it.....(preface: these
are my opinions that I give freely, use them as you wish. You won't be heard
if you don't voice your opinions...and also forgive me for any grammatical/spelling
mistakes as I am writing this on the fly...I think if you read through you will get
my point)
Now onto (trying to answer ICANN's questions posed to the public)My opinion
on answering these questions is not that it's a hassle, but a privelege...I have
read comments that there were to many questions...However I say to those people,
then don't complain, when policies by ICANN are implemented...because you chose not
to answer a few questions...
Q & A
Q1: In the introduction of new TLDs,
what steps should be taken to coordinate with the Internet Engineering Task Force,
the Internet Architecture Board, and other organizations dealing with Internet protocols
and standards? Set up a board that will be responsible for this particular
aspect of the intial intro of TLD's...Have them come up with some recommendations
for certain protocols and standards. Then the board could meet with selected
members of the IETF and the IAB and other org's to resolve this issue.
Q2: What
stability concerns are associated with the initial phases of registration within
the TLD? I think if anything having 6 to 10 new gTLD's will actually promote
stability and dilute any perceived scarcity. As far as a registry being able
to handle the process they should have to this point (proven) themselves...I realize
this sounds biased since I am a .web domain name holder but in all honesty (a registry
cannot be built in one day...So Name-Space.com comes to mind as promoting stability
as well for any gTLD's as they have shown themselves to be reliable...I realize the
true test is the actual upload, registration procedures URPD adherence, etc..but
these companies are ready...TM issues with regards to new TLD's are a non-issue,
especially since we have had good reports for the WIPO process and policies adopted
through the domain name resolution process.
Q3: What can be done to eliminate or
reduce these stability concerns?
To the extent you could control space and time,
there is little that ICANN can actually do, other than implement the policies in
place right now (without getting too restrictive) and then "correct for error", through
consenus based policies. I read a lot of the messages left on the GA postings
and cannot believe what I have read...that they (those who are what you would call
purists) don't think regular individuals are cut out for voting on issues before
ICANN (because of them possibly owning domain names and not thinking the way they
do)...THIS has no place for ICANN---concensus based polices (which come from business,
domain owners, users, technical folks, etc) is the only way ICANN will survive and
promote a healthy internet...
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified by
introducing a large number of TLDs at once? No...I think as I have stated above
we could handle at least 6 to 10 without diluting the system....The domain names
(the type) are really the key issue here....more than the number...I think everyone
has been so focused on the number of domains...FOCUS on the quality of the domain
(if it can't compete with dot com---for an open gTLD) is will do no good)...Therefore
make sure there is great interest in the domains that are rolled out...
Q5: Are
there any practical means of reversing the introduction of a significant new TLD
once it goes into operation? No...Thinking this way is not a good idea....Just
concentrate on the "Ball" which is the quality of the domain...The reason why dot
com is and "was" successful is that it appealed to individuals (above .net--which
is suprising--actually not since .net was to be only used for networks...however
this is interesting nonetheless) and the fact it is known worldwide, etc.....Uploading
a dot biz or banc in my opinion would create problems for the simple fact that they
are not generic like say a dot web (again I am biased however see my point through)..dot
banc (which would be closed) doesn't have universality and dot .biz (is way to specific)...Therefore
I suggest having a concesus based vote..do it on the ICANN website...Here is a "vote
page" on name-space...although not scientific it does have some merit..copy and past
this link to view: http://vote.global-namespace.net/cgi-bin/vote.pl
Q6: Is it feasible
to introduce a TLD on a "trial basis," giving clear notice that the TLD might be
discontinued after the trial is completed? No....I don't think this type of
approach is healthy even though everyone is trying to think of a "just in case scenario"...rather
than have an exit plan...ICANN should be thinking of a scientific way to gauge the
viability of a gTLD before hand...I think the concensus based vote would ensure a
likelyhood of it succeeding...
Q7: To ensure continued stability, what characteristics
should be sought in a proposed TLD and in the organization(s) proposing to sponsor
and/or operate it? I think have clearly made my point for an IOD to be the
first registry, however I don't think I can stress enough the fact that IOD has been
in this business since 1996 and has been involved in the process (attending meetings,
DNSO working group, etc, etc)...To ensure stability one must have been involved in
this process and not a johnny come lately...AND no I am not saying that a new person
on the block could not recruit inviduals who have been involved in the process, however
one company and it's people have been there from day one....I would NOT like to see
Network Solutions involved in this process, because of their overwhelming advantage
with dot com's...Also there ability to transfer domains right now is at 6 weeks...Hopefully
this point is well taken about the prospective registries involvement in the process.
Q8:
To what extent is the experience gained from introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable
to present-day circumstances? I think if anything, it should be one gTLD per each
registry....The new system where companies are sharing .com's are a mess...unreliable
at times and causes concern for security of the domains...I think a registry should
own outright a domain name (if it is TM'd)....If the goal is to have more in the
future, competition would ensue, creating a viable system...Trying to have several
companies at the intial phases be responsible for a dot shop for instance would invite
problems..however one company taking registrations for a dotshop would guarantee
a few things (which are HIGHLY important to the internet)...Person A registers a
name from the dot shop registry has CONFIDENCE in getting that name because he/she
knows its the only one...As far as the land grab fear having one registry per each
gTLD will cut down on this...If they shut down the servers at least you know that
no other dot shop's are being registered somewhere else..Confidence is the key (that
is why I discourage the "what if" language a approach everything from a "Consumer"
"Quality" and "Confidence" approach.
Q9: To the extent it is applicable, what are
the lessons to be learned from that experience? That this is ONE big experiment
that is in the process of growing (adding domains)..You may not get it perfect, but
if you can have the confidence of the people (as they do for money---credit cards
are the equivalent experiement going on right now)then you could upload 6 to 10 gTLD's
quite safely...
Q10: anb Q11: No comment have answered these questions
Q12: Is
the Names Council's recommendation that a "limited number of new top-level domains
be introduced initially" a sensible way to minimize risks to Internet stability?
IN a clintonion answer to this, "what was there definition of a limited number"....I
felt there was strong support for 6 to 10 (my opionion however) and I just felt the
DNSO after pressure from a particular group opted for this limited language....Nothing
is going to be learned from just 2 gTLD's rolling out...if anything...it will increase
value's of the dot com's and .cc's (beauty.cc--example) for that matter...I think
if you have 6 to 10 "quality" names (meaning able to compete with a dot com) then
this in my opinion would be sufficient for evaluation "in my limited view"...I will
go on record that having thousands of domains and registries will not be good....I
can see the DNS tapping out at possibly 20 to 30 someday (then switching to a new
way to access the internet"
Q13: What steps should be taken to evaluate carefully
the initial introduction of TLDs before future introduction of additional TLDs?
This should be SET in STONE from the onset (again confidence, confidence, confidence---I
noticed ICANN listed on their webpage the timeframe at which they will do things---This
gives me a LOT of confidence right now in ICANN....) I don't think anything would
be different if you published BEFOREHAND the timetable (whether you get it right
or not should be a problem as having 6 to 10 new "quality" gTLD's roll out will not
only give the sytem a needed boost(most people feel we need new gTLD's) but this
amount cannot possibably do any harm (others might disagree however I am committed
to my assumption based on my involvement with DNS issues)..My recommendation is to
do it on a yearly basis (such as congress did for china on trade issues) ...on a
yearly basis you can vote more in, vote to not vote for up to 5 to 10 years, etc...But
I think right off the bat, having a year out date with promote CONFIDENCE!
Q14:
through Q15...I believe I have answered these
Q16: Should any particular goal
for, or limit on, the number of TLDs to be included in the initial introduction be
established in advance, or alternatively should the number included in the initial
introduction be guided by the extent to which proposals establish sound proofs of
concept of varied new? Yes, vote on what (gtlds, who and what criteria (call it the
3 w's)...Then on a yearly basis vote on effectiveness (just remember to let something
grow you need to allow the entity to compete and without alot of rule making:...Keep
it Simple Stupid (the K.I.S.S) concept...again, others feel different in that they
feel multiple restrictions is the way to go to "ensure stability"...hogwash...THe
only good that would come from that would be the demise of the group that created
the multiple restrictions...I do think the only restriction I would have (from the
get go) is that you have one registry and per each new gTLD....What about businesses
that did not get the gTLD they wanted...Well I say, create another business plan,
submit a new proposal for a domain name...If the company that got the new gTLD does
not perform or is the "root" of any problems that can't be handled then there out
and someone else can bid for the new gTLD...
Q17 - Q40---I believe I either have
answered these or have not comment.
Q41 - Q48 - These questions are for the courts
to deside after the new gTLDs have been uploaded (such as it is being done now---Don't
reinvent the wheel)...I think a sound plan going into the phases as far as protecting
TM holders and intellectual property owners is inform TM holders of the process being
UDRP or WIPO, etc...Again, if I registered a domain with the test bed registrar Register.com
last year I would have been held to a certain criteria...that should NOT change with
the new registries..You don't want a dual process..
Q49- Q65---I believe I either
have answered these or have not comment.
Q66 - Q69---Again your asking how you
should evaluate a company wanting to be a registry for a new gTLDs...The criteria
should not be any different then what ICANN has set forth for the test bed registrars
that have come online is the fall of Network Solutions. DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL...Look
at your policies now? Let me ask you that question...Do they work? If
now where are the weaknesses...Is it capital...etc...Again...for a new company to
get a gTLD (one company one gTLD) they should have shown interest in this process
before 6/13/00. ALSO DON'T CREATE DIFFERENT standards for the .com/.net/.org
businesses...One thing new I would add is if a .com/.net/.org ICANN approved registar
wants to become a registry for a new gTLD, that they would have to give up their
rights to sell the .com/.net/.org (one company one gTLD)...
Q70 and Q72 - Q74 -
All I can say about the intellectual property protections and other policies of this
nature---they should mimic the current standards...Evaluate on a yearly basis...make
recommendations...call for opionion (concensus) vote in a timely matter...implement...That
simple...Some will same "ya but..." I say, make changes...make changes for everyone..however
just remember is what your doing for the good of the CONSUMER..without the consumer
there is no trademarks---intellectual property...If a tree falls in the forest...type
thing...I am not downgrading TM protection...it's just I think trying to solve the
problem beforehand is unduly creating unneccesary restrictions when ulitimately the
decision is up the the courts......
OUT of sequence but I do have a comment on
Q71
Q71: What role should ICANN have in the start-up procedures for new unrestricted
TLDs? Simply, any type of (oversight) organization should be that of a gatekeeper...It
appears to me that ICANN has rules in place for new registrars for dot com names,
why reinvent the wheel? Here is my suggestion: Vote on the new gTLD's
and new registrars (for each gTLD) then decide when (1/1/01), how (each registry
must have already laid out their plans in accordance with establish rules), evalue
1/1/02)....I know people are thinking...what if, ya but...It has to be more difficult
that that...IS it ICANN?
Please