Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing the introduction of a significant
new TLD once it goes into operation?It must be avoided.
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?
Yes, but then it's fair not to charge for registrations
until the trial is completed and the TLD is not to be discontinued.
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?
Yes,
but the number should be 10-30 TLDs.
Q15: Should choices regarding the types of
TLDs included in the initial introduction seek to promote effective evaluation of:
-
the feasibilty and utility of different types of new TLDs?
- the efficacy of
different procedures for launching new TLDs?
different policies under which the
TLDs can be administered in the longer term?
- different operational models for
the registry and registrar functions?
- different institutional structures for
the formulation of registration and operation policies within the TLD?
other
factors?
I definitively think that the procedure of letting IOD enter their preregistered
.web-names first would be interesting to evaluate.
Q19: Would the introduction
of additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among
Internet users?
Absolutely not.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account,
should one or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
Q21:
How many?
I would say about 10.
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs
be in providing effective competition to .com?
Very, since the .com is very overheated.
Q23:
What can be done to maximize the prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive
to consumers as alternatives to .com?
Selecting the most popular labels, especially
.web. Se Q54.
Q24: Would the likelihood of effective competition with .com be enhanced
by making one or more of the single-character .com domains (which are currently registered
to the IANA) available for use as the basis of a third-level registry (i.e. a registry
that took registration of names in the form of example.e.com or example.1.com)? Should
the single-character .com domains be made available for possible registry usage in
conjunction with the initial group of additional TLDs?
No, it would not enhance
the competition. These subdomains are not interesting at all. This has already been
proven in a lot of ccTLDs.
Q25: Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location
tool an appropriate goal in the introduction of new TLDs?
I don't think that the
DNS can be used as an "Yahoo-catalog". It simply can't be done (in a way that i usable
to the web users).
Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated
TLDs run counter to this goal?
No.
Q34: Has the inventory of useful and available
domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
It's a big problem that "all" useful
and desirable .com-names are taken.
Q35: Assuming it is important to increase the
inventory of available domain names, should that be done by adding TLDs that are
not differentiated from the present ones?
Yes, there's nothing wrong with that
method.
Q41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual
property rights that warrant additional protections?
No.
Q42: Should the protections
afforded intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending
on the type of TLD?
No.
Q43: Is the availability of the UDRP and court proceedings
as remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights an appropriate element of
protection of intellectual-property rights that should apply to all new TLDs?
Yes
Are there any other protections that should be made available in all new TLDs,
regardless of their type?
No
Q45: What mechanisms for start up of a new TLD should
be followed to ensure that all persons receive a fair chance to obtain registrations?
No
mechanisms, except that preregistered .web names at IOD should enter the .web TLD
first. The reason goes back to the given permission by IANA in 1996.
Q46: Is exclusion
of names appearing on a globally famous trademark list a workable method of protecting
such marks from infringement at the present time? Would an exclusion mechanism be
approprate in the future?
No.
Q47: Should introduction of new TLDs await completion
of an evaluation of the operation of the UDRP and be subject to a finding that the
UDRP has been successful in meeting its objectives? How long would such an evaluation
likely take to complete?
No we don't have to wait for that. The UDRP is working
well enough today.
Q54: Should ICANN select the TLD labels, should they be proposed
by the applicants for new TLD registries, or should they be chosen by a consultative
process between the applicants and ICANN?
One major goal is to take the heat off
.com. Therefor the selected TLD labels must be the ones most popular by the "web
community". That means that .web has to be one of the selected labels, even if it
means going into negotiations with IOD.
Q55: Should there be minimum or maximum
length requirements for TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate to avoid possible
future conflicts with ISO 3166-1 codes?
No restrictions, but of course the labels
have to be clear and "user-friendly".
Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting
between potential TLD labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
No.
Se Q54.
Q58: How many new TLDs of each type should be included in the initial introduction?
I
think it would be best to introduce about 10 each.
Q59: Which types of TLDs will
best serve the DNS?
With no doubt unrestricted.
Q60: Are there any types of TLDs
that ICANN should not consider?
No, but if the limit is only 10 new TLDs, they
should all be unrestricted.
Q61: Which types, if any, are essential to the successful
testing period?
Unrestricted.
Q71: What role should ICANN have in the start-up
procedures for new unrestricted TLDs?
In the .web/IOD case, to protect the interest
of the companies and private persons who already have invested money in a .web name.
In other words; let the preregistered .web names enter the .web TLD first. It's a
question of decency.