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?
(a) Establish a standard that the
SLD should specify a Web server. This will be easier for the public to use,
no more “www.”
(b) During the “introductory” period, forbid the sale or transfer
of SLD’s in these TLD’s.
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified by introducing
a large number of TLDs at once?
Yes
Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing
the introduction of a significant new TLD once it goes into operation?
(a) Require
explicit consent to decommissioning as a condition of acquiring an SLD in this TLD.
(b)
Plan on a one-year “forward only” period after any discontinuation, so that, for
example, COKE.WEB would forward to COKE.COM
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
Q8: To what extent is the experience gained from
introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to present-day circumstances?
Not at
all.
Q10: What lessons, if any, can be learned regarding new gTLD introductions
from the experience of the ccTLD registries?
They have not significantly touched
on the perception that “.com is the place to be” so the new gTLD’s are also unlikely
to have any effect, making the whole idea a bad one. The burdens of policing
for trademark infringement outweigh any slight benefit from adding new TLD’s.
To use an analogy, .COM is already the prosperous downtown, adding other TLD’s is
just spreading a strip-mall sprawl which will become the slums of tomorrow.
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
(unless you yield to common sense and realize that you should forget the whole idea).
Q13:
What steps should be taken to evaluate carefully the initial introduction of TLDs
before future introduction of additional TLDs?
(a) Determine how many registrants
“really” use the new names, comparing that to “real” use within existing TLD’s.
Real use would consist of non-placeholding web pages or other services. The
evaluation would have to involve substantial human judgement. Assuming registrations
numbered in the hundreds or thousands, a random sampling would be required to afford
time for a truly in-depth study.
(b) Determine how many registrants ALSO have
.COM (or other “old” TLD) domains. There is no benefit if the result of new
TLDs is a proliferation of registrations pointing back to existing sites.
Q14:
Should a fixed time be established for all the evaluations, or should the time allowed
vary depending on the nature of the TLD and other circumstances?
Fixed time, since
we want to evaluate how new TLD’s work generically. A single 18-month time
period would give anyone time to report their conclusions, after which the appropriate
course of action can be determined for all of the new TLD’s, if appropriate.
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 TLD attributes?
There is a strong
value on limiting the number, regardless of the merits of any particular proposed
TLD. 6 to 10 sounds good.
Q17: In view of the current competitive conditions,
should the promotion of effective competition in the provision of registration services
continue to be a significant motivation for adding fully open TLDs?No. Q20:
Taking all the relevant factors into account, should one or more fully open TLDs
be included in the initial introduction? No.
Q22: How effective would other
fully open TLDs be in providing effective competition to .com?
As effective as
.org – which is to say, not at all. Q23: What can be done to maximize the prospect
that new fully open TLDs will be attractive to consumers as alternatives to .com?
(As
mentioned for Q1) Establish a standard that the SLD should specify a Web server.
This will be easier for the public to use, no more “www.”
Q34: Has the inventory
of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
No.
Q41:
Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights
that warrant additional protections?
Yes.
Q42: Should the protections afforded
intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type
of TLD?
No – ripping off other folks property is just as important in .xyz as
with .com
|
|
|