Q51: Should all proposals be posted for comment simultaneously
to maintain equal time for public comment? Should all proposals be posted for public
comment as they are received to allow the greatest possible time for public analysis
and comment?Post them simultaneously to maintain a fair public discourse.
Q52:
Should the formal applications be posted in full for public comment? If not, which
parts of the applications should remain private?
Consider keeping financial models
private.
Q53: Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or numerous possibilities?
The
economics of registries is such that adding another TLD string to a registry's repertoire
is very inexpensive. Also, registries will appeal to a broader base of customers
if they offer more variety in TLD spaces. Both these factors suggest that registries
should be allowed to apply for more than one TLD.
On the other hand, ICANN has
made it clear that it intends to severely restrict the number awarded in the initial
round. It would be anti-competitive to allow most of the available grants to be given
to one company. Therefore, ICANN should allow applicants to apply for several TLDs,
but should only award one to each applicant in the initial round.
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?
The
TLD strings should be proposed by the applicants. ICANN should either accept or reject
the application. A "consultative process between the applicants and ICANN" could
end up being "secret, behind the doors deals." It is inimical to transparency.
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?
I see no
reason to prescribe minimum or maximum lengths. But if you want to reserve ISO-3166-1
country codes, which makes sense, do not allow two-letter strings at all.
Q56:
Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels that are established (for
example, a prohibition of country names)?
No. The policy objective should be to
eliminate, as much as possible, any qualities of domain names that confer upon them
special, official status. They should be treated as unique identifiers with mnemonic
features.
Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting between potential TLD
labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
The main criterion should
be the strength of end user demand for the names and/or the services associated with
the registry. Put differently, whichever proposals are most likely to succeed in
the marketplace should be favored. This policy should be followed even if the proposal
or string is not aesthetically pleasing to the decision-makers. E.g., there is little
doubt that a pornography-focused TLD would be an economic success. It would meet
a clear demand not only from pornography suppliers and consumers, but also from those
who wish to avoid porn by having it clearly labeled. One would hope that ICANN would
be statesmanlike enough to take this bull by the horns.
The selection of the language
of the string depends in large part on the number and quality of the proposals you
receive. As to whether non-English language strings should be favored, there are
two potentially conflicting ways to approach this question. One is that, as stated
above, new TLDs must be successful economically. This fact might favor more English-language
TLDs, because English is the most widely used language globally and the current market
for Internet services is dominated by North America. The other important goal, however,
is that other languages are poorly represented in the DNS, and non-English countries
will represent the fastest-growing parts of the Internet, especially Asian countries.
That is a strong reason to favor non-English proposals, provided that businesses
and organizations are ready and able to come forth with viable proposals for them.
These two approaches become easier and easier to reconcile the larger the number
of new TLDs ICANN is willing to award in the first round.
By the way, is ".com"
English? It doesn't appear in my dictionary.
Q58: How many new TLDs of each type
should be included in the initial introduction?
There should be 10 in the initial
introduction. 5 should be open, "generic" TLDs in 5 different languages, 3 should
be non-commercial, free speech oriented TLDs in various languages, and 2 should be
"technical services" TLDs such as .enum for telephone number mapping or .priv for
private networks.
Q59: Which types of TLDs will best serve the DNS?
See questions
1 - 74.
Q60: Are there any types of TLDs that ICANN should not consider?
Chartered
TLDs. Their delegation raises international policy issues and questions about the
nature of ICANN that need to be aired and discussed more fully. There is no pressing
need for chartered TLDs, so those issues can be resolved later.
Q61: Which types,
if any, are essential to the successful testing period?
I do not accept the premise
that new TLDs need to be "tested." However, on the quite real possibility that ICANN
and various special interests may delay for another five years the introduction of
more, the following are essential in the initial period:
A "free speech" TLD in
which the suffix clearly designates a forum in which names can be used for the expression
of opinion without fear of trademark violation. Examples might be .sucks, .humanrights,
.freiheit, .opinion, .polis, .alt.
A commercially viable generic, such as .web,
or .zone, a Korean and/or Chinese character version of com, such as wang[3], which
means web or net, or a European .eur or some such.
These specific TLD selections
should be driven by the applications available, not by my or ICANN's predilections.
Q63:
Should ICANN accept proposals from companies formed/forming for the purpose of operating
or sponsoring a new TLD? If so, how should ICANN determine the competence of the
company?
Yes, it should accept such proposals.
ICANN must face the fact that
it will not be in a position to predict the performance of officers or companies.
It should specify operational and financial criteria that directly affect the stability
of the DNS and make sure that all proposals conform to them.
One critical issue
that does not seem to be addressed by your question is that of the transferability
of the TLD. Can the registry be acquired? Can the authorization to run it be sold?
This will be an important issue for both successful and unsuccessful commercial registries.
My position is that transferability in the marketplace is an important form of
protection against bad choices in the initial selection, perhaps the most important
form of protection.
Q66: How much capital should be required? Should it be a fixed
amount or should it vary with the type of proposal and the sufficiency of the business
plan? How should the sufficiency of capital be evaluated?
The amount of capital
required should vary depending on the type of proposal and the business plan. Some
of the "technical services" TLD proposals might require significant technical expertise
but generate little revenue; they would provide support services for other revenue-producing
activities. Some might be aimed at very small markets or noncommercial constituencies.
Others, such as a direct competitor of dot com, might need to gear up for 35,000
registrations a day.
Q67: Should ICANN seek diversity in business models as well
as TLD types? Which, if any, business models are essential to a successful evaluation
phase?
Yes, definitely. It would be interesting to see whether an exclusive registry,
which is much more stable technically than a SRS, is constrained price-wise by the
existence of other competitors.
Q68: What measures should be in place to protect
registrants from the possibility of a registry operator's business failure?
Very
few. ICANN’s public information about the process should make it clear that buyers
of registry services face risks. Data should be escrowed (IANA began proposing procedures
for this back in late 1995), methods for transferring the right should be defined.
Q70: How should ICANN evaluate the sufficiency of proposed intellectual property
protections?
This is a surprising question, because it presumes that registries
will propose any IP protections. Most legal precedents for gTLDs make it clear that
registries are not responsible for IP violations by registrants. See most notably
the Lockheed Martin v. NSI case. It is a bad idea for a number of reasons to link
the technical function of registering domain names to the policing and enforcement
of IPR.
Certainly ICANN can expect adherence to the UDRP by the registrars in
a new TLD. This is sufficient.
Q71: What role should ICANN have in the start-up
procedures for new unrestricted TLDs?
None.
Q72: In what ways should the application
requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ from those for open TLDs?
The
proposal of the restricted registry should contain a clear definition of its policy.
Q73: Should ICANN require a statement of policy or should a statement of how policies
will be made be sufficient?
For the initial round, a statement of policy should
be made, but unless ICANN intends to take a far more activist role than it should,
this is not an important issue.