Dear Members At Large, Names Council and ICANN Board Mebers:I spent over two days,
a night, plus I also pulled an "all-nighter" to complete these comments and input
to be used by ICANN as you deem appropriate to guide your decision on this very important
matter for the hundreds of thousand of residents here in Los Angeles, especially
the poor and the masses with no access to this forum/medium.
I was systematic
about providind these responses as I think that your work is commendable and may
be complemented by the views of you constituency. I respectfully hope that
you consider these recommendations when making your decision.
Please keep up the
OUTSTANDING WORK YOU ALL DO !!! God Bless !!! and Thanks a Million!!!
Very Truly
Yours,
Nestor Requeno
Los Angeles, California USA
P.S. In the interest of
time/openness, I will also put these comments on the public board.
In view of these considerations, public comment is sought on the
following issues:
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?
At
the expense of sounding redundant by stating what may already be the obvious to ICANN,
I will not assume anything and will state the assumptions underlying the rest of
the responses. I list these assumptions and processes so as to lay the groundwork
for the rest of the answers. These assumptions speak of the steps that should
be taken to coordinate with the ICANN Task Forces, Boards and other organizations:
The
technical teams (e.g., Engineering, ISPs, Ad Hoc group, etc.) should develop a draft
technical implementation outline which will serve for each of the ICANN units and
subunits to prepare, in turn, unit/constituency-specific outlines. The technical
teams will review and comment the draft implementation outlines. Upon mutual agreement
between the technical teams, the outlines will be developed into general unit/sub-unit
plans and reviewed/commented upon by each of the affected units—as identified by
each plan and by the technical teams in order for the implementation documents to
be technically consistent.
Additionally, the IETF, the IAB and other organizations,
including ICANN’s constituency units and submits (e.g., DNSO & ccTLDs, gTLDs, the
Intellectual Property Constituency; ASO & ARIN, APNIC; and The Engineering Task Force
& the International Telecommunication Union, the Electronic Commerce for Developing
Countries (EC-DC), etc.] shall each be designated the lead agency in developing their
individual pieces of the implementation plan. Overarching-principles and desirable
outcomes as outlined by the Board will cohesively mesh the individual implementation
“sub-projects”. Meaning that the Board will have delegated authority (but also
responsibility) to each of the units inside ICANN to develop the individual pieces
of the Plan.
Once the individual pieces are each completed by a due date,
all the pieces shall be put together by a special workgroup (to be identified, designated
or summoned by the Board upon the recommendations of the Membership At Large).
The workgroup shall include representatives from each of the constituencies to
format and draft the comprehensive draft plan as one, including the input from each
of the Advisory Committees/Group. This process should take about a month and
a half to two months.
Upon completion of the draft document, the whole
draft document, with attachments, should be checked for technical allowably (i.e.,
the Task Force), relevance and legality through a clearance process (review and comment
process) by the all of the ICANN’s internal constituency (again), the Department
of Commerce and legal counsel.
Once the draft has been cleared by legal counsel
and the, which should last about ten (10) working days, the internal review comments
shall be incorporated and the draft document posted in the Public Comment Forum for
comments by the Membership At Large and distributed to all interested and advocacy
parties, nationally and abroad, for comments. A firm deadline for comments
shall be placed to submit comments. Perhaps an interactive-session can be served
as a public hearing to answer and address any questions people may have.
Upon
completion of the final document, the document should be posted a redistributed –for
recommendation to the Board for Adoption by the November 2000 meeting at Marina del
Rey, or any other special meeting called by the Board for this purpose.
The
Document shall become effective upon approval by the Board and all the administrative
units and involved units will start developing their pieces of the plan, while the
whole plan is centrally coordinated by the CEO / or a special multi-disciplinary
Constituency Coordinator’s Committee/Task Force.
The Membership At Large
and the Public shall have input into the implementation process via scheduled monthly
public meetings and a New gTLD Public Committee, a subset of the membership at large,
who will become specialists/involved in the progress and implementation of the plan.
All relevant issues and milestones shall be revealed at the Public Meetings, provided
that the Board receives ample notice of any public information to be released in
case that its constituents ask questions via the individual Board offices.
The
individual implementation pieces could be categorized as Technical Date, Technical
Administrative, Services, Evaluation, Fiscal, Human Resources, and should be separately
approved by the Board if future follow-up actions were prescribed by the Board prior
to implementation or shall be implemented and coordinated with the other pieces of
the plan.
The evaluation phase shall commence immediately prior to implementation
and shall gauge the implementation/roll-out of the new gTLD based on primary/secondary/indicator
data, in addition to qualitative data, to determine whether to refine, expand, restrict,
reverse or continue the implementation pace/phase. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do
an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q2: What stability concerns
are associated with the initial phases of registration within the TLD?
The stability
concern will be the surplus demand and the simultaneous requests for similar domain
names. At this point, the general public may be unaware of the developments
and hence may be unaffected by the initial phase. However, WhoIs and similar
systems would have to be updated hourly so as to minimize the confusion and misreading
that a domain name is available. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal
scanning; and then decide.
Q3: What can be done to eliminate or reduce these stability
concerns?
ICANN should set target goals on the maximum number of domains that can
be registered in a given day in order to piece mill and batch the requests to allow
registrants to update their internal systems, those automated and those manual ones,
in order to minimize and “cool-off” any bottlenecks and/or overheating registration
activity (e.g., similar to Wall Street’s placing a stop on trading if the market
has reached a certain volume of trading). The Internet in general, as a structure
may be able to absorb the volume, but the registrars may not, including the equipment,
the software and the orgware. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal
scanning; and then decide.
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified by introducing
a large number of TLDs at once?
My educated guess, just for the sake of comparison,
is that the concerns will be magnified to the second power (X^2) per gTLD at the
Internet Structural level and exponentially (e^X) at the registrar level. Do a Cost
Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q5: Are
there any practical means of reversing the introduction of a significant new TLD
once it goes into operation?
Not if the gTLD is released at the unrestricted level
(e.g., business.web)—with or without a sunrise period. Probably YES if all
gTLDs originally released are all only operable at each specific ccTLD level—with
no “unrestricted” gTLD (e.g., business.web NOT; but YES: business.web.us; or YES=
candy.business.web, whereby business.web would be available to everyone). If
indeed a reversal in contemplated from the outset, then instead of releasing the
gTLD unlimited, ICANN should rather launch a pilot version of the gTLD to a very
specific group or within very specific constraints. Rolling out a gTLD without
a sunshine phase and/or in a totally open market, the reversal may do more harm than
good in that many will have grounds for claiming a legitimate standing, damage and
possible damages. The administratively prudent thing to do is to decide—based
on all considerations: technical vis-à-vis Ipv4, Ipv5 and/or Ipv6; legal; financial;
administrative; issue-driven considerations, etc.—PRIOR to rolling-out any and all
new gTLDs. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and
then decide.
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
only if the gTLD is released within a very limited universe, however the universe
is defined (e.g., by ccTLD (i.e., xxxxx.WEB.US) by type of registrar, by the type
and length of a sunrise; by only releasing second-level domains; by geography; by
two-word domains, etc.). Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal
scanning; and then decide.
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?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis and decide. The main characteristic
given these post-modern times is one of “meaning” and “relevance”. That is, the domain
must carry a simple yet strong meaning with a general appeal first, and a “legal
or technical coloring” second and third. For example, .WEB is simple and meaningful
given the common reference made to the Internet (not just the WWW) as the “web”.
The public in general may not know, nor may care, that some people already have .WEBs
or that .REG is the kosher version of another .COM/.NET or .WEB domain. However,
the public does care that whatever is ultimately offered, this time around, based
on what has gone on in the past is that the Internet (the web) needs to be “simple
to use” and must fulfill some very real needs and wants, as a tool for productivity,
for local relevance, and for the daily activities as consumers, citizens, community
members, family members, school members, etc.
The new gTLD and the organizations
sponsoring the gTLD must gain the public trust and must be able to implement and
manage the gTLD in a way that eases the fear, mistrust and knowledge-deficit of the
Internet and technology. The new gTLD should help people feel good about using
it; it should be “trendy” as people’s behavior would determine if not just the name
(e.g., .WEB) but also the image and the meaning this gTLD has is worth attaching
to something they value or to access and value something that is attached to the
gTLD. (Remember when the Pentium chip first came out an people thought of the
Pentium chip as something which would be prone to error and which may have messed-up
their checking accounts balances based on the revelation that the chip had a “flaw”).
If people think that the new gTLD may have a flaw(s) and/or that this is just
a reversible experiment then the credibility for the new gTLD may be compromised
from the beginning. I don’t have a crystal ball in front of me to say that
.WEB will be an immediate success either (if not, think about the New Coke vs. Classic
Coke—although the .WEB not gaining the acceptance is unlikely, given that domains
are not rated by “tastebuds”, rather than by their utility, meaning and relevance).
I’ll close this question by telling my first experience with domains: When I first
heard of .com, .org, .gov and .edu , I did not question much their meaning—they clicked
& made sense to me—one for businesses (although I was not sure what the “com” stood
for; one for government (I thought even State); one for non-profits; and one for
schools).
That registered very quickly in my mind and I adopted this new thing
without much fuss. However, a gTLD of .WEB, which may allow everyone and their
uncle to register it (e.g., the .coms/.orgs/.nets), may not be as easily “relied-upon”,
and people may by default look at .com first, then to .WEB.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis;
do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Click here to enter the
Public Comment Forum on Introduction of New TLDs
Q8: To what extent is the experience
gained from introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to present-day circumstances?
I
can speak for a great deal of people. For context, other than to the specialized
groups who knew how to register a domain and/or who followed the dealings of Network
Solutions Inc., the Department of Commerce and ICANN, the general public has not
had that many negative experiences with gTLDs, for the most part the general public
may not know or care about the difference in a gTLD or a GeoCities URL, other than
one is easier to remember than the other.
In this light what do we know now? 1)
We know that people have easily adopted the .com concept and has put it to use for
everyday commercial purposes; 2) trademark owners or legitimately named businesses
may have a conflict with similarly legitimate users about both wanting a discrete
(said in statistical/mathematical term) gTLD (i.e., a zero sum game); 3) some
people buy domains and horde them in hopes to sell it for a lot more than the original
price of the domain for as much as the market will bear and a willing buyer is willing
to pay; 4) people and businesses seek legal intervention (or administrative hearings/remedies)
to settle their disputes as to who should get to use the discrete domain name; 5)
mass appeal of .com and other domains will easily surpass the 32-bit upper limit
predictions (e.g., Ipv5 may not be enough given the excitement about and the new-comers-en-mass
to the Internet); 6) people want to hook-up as much as they can to the Internet (e.g.,
portable personal planners, their cars, their bikes, their cell phones, their TVs,
their homes, their classrooms, their employees, their boardrooms, their billboards,
etc. . . . ); 7) competition in gTLDs has kept prices low for most domain names,
notwithstanding the “hot picks”; 8) the Registries are working effectively and provide
services in a customer-focused manner; 9) the federal government (e.g., Congress
and the Executive Departments, and to some extent the courts) want the gTLDs and
the Internet to continue to be innovative, creative, efficient, effective and not
burdened with undue bureaucratic red-tape and has provided avenues to influence behavior
(e.g., Cybersquatter Act, remanding complaints to the administrative level: ICANN;
providing coordinated oversight); 10) people’s civil rights, Constitutional rights
and basic rights are affected (+ /-) by the Internet and the availability to the
.coms /.orgs/.nets/.edus/.govs, be it as users; providers of services; or as consumers;
11) Other countries claim “co-ownership” of the Internet and want/demand equal time
and equal access to the capacity and flexibilities of the Internet’s use at their
jurisdictional levels; 12) the majority of the world (including the majority of America)
is not yet hooked up to the Internet. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external
and internal scanning; and then decide.
All these things listed above which we
know now, and the ones which one may add to the list, are applicable today to a great
extent, as compare to what has evolved since the 1980s.
Q9: To the extent
it is applicable, what are the lessons to be learned from that experience?
The
lessons to be learned are, and I’ll put them in the form of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats:
Strengths: The Internet has mass appeal. Commerce/retail
and investors have embraced it and find it profitable and productive. The current
Infrastructure and the original conceptualization of the Internet have been adequate
to handle the current demand. Competition and de-centralization of domain registrations
have made domains more accessible to the masses and have made domains more affordable.
There is great expectation and urgency by, at least from the specialized groups of,
Internet users to get an opportunity to get/sell/buy new gTLDs. The physical/technical
infrastructure of the Internet may continue to adequately handle a new large volume
of gTLD for the short term (up to 12 months), with some mid-range (after one to three
years from now) structural/infrastructure modifications (e.g., Ipv5, Ipv6,
Browsers, chips, etc.).
Weaknesses: Problems are more administrative/legal/procedural,
rather than technical in dealing with mass domain registrations. ICANN and
the whole Internet community are creating most of the organizational infrastructure,
locally, nationally and globally. ICANN does not have the resources or the
current mechanisms to summon capital to effectively administer a mass operation that
may exponentially increase the administrative and procedural demands.
OPPORTUNITIES:
ICANN has the opportunity to do things (gTLDs) “smart” by including the know-how
developed on managing gTLDs; gTLDs may have more than just a semantic meaning, rather
gTLDs may have local meaning and serve to boost regional/local economic development
and innovations. ICANN can start developing a solid revenue base to develop
a pool of resources and funds to carry-out the administrative and coordinating/technical
duties of managing the gTLD implementation is a self-sustainable manner.
THREATS:
The new economy is vulnerable to internal shifts within the technology stocks and
technology firms. Any negative feedback loops coming from the gTLDs may have
a “butterfly effect” to companies, industries, competitive spaces, market niches,
and regional/global/local economic development. If the midrange structural changes
(i.e., Ipv5/Ipv6) don’t take place, the Internet’s diminishing returns may create
scarcity and price wars for exiting domains—technically the stability of the Internet
will be at risk if the Internet’s structure needed changes are deferred beyond the
mid-range target goal. Intellectual property issues and folklore will shift
benefits and costs in an unbalanced fashion (e.g., another zero-sum game).
If things do not go according to the stakeholders’ expectations, ICANN’s legitimacy
and ability to coordinate and oversee the technical aspects of the Internet may wane
and the Internet may become a fragmented/localized system of networks (mostly closed
due to protectionism and local-control needs/tendencies). The Internet as we
know it, depending on how well or how badly the gTLDs are released, managed and/or
received, may be rapidly taken over by other market forces (digitization, wireless
and bandwidth technologies) and its relevance diminished in a more likely to pessimistic
scenario—or—will only maintain its current pace of relevant in an optimistic scenario,
given that the Internet competitor-platforms/technologies are quickly gaining relevance
and acceptance.
The greater the number of certified registries the higher the degree
of competition and affordable prices on domains that will be made available.
The following logic follows: the lesser the number of registries, the higher the
prices and the more bottlenecks that will be encountered to register domains.
The greater the number of registries may be directly correlated with higher numbers
of administrative complaints, domain arbitration, and domain availability reductions.
Do
a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q10:
What lessons, if any, can be learned regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience
of the ccTLD registries?
I need additional information to answer this appropriately,
as I don’t have first-hand information as to how the gTLDs are functioning at the
ccTLD level and whether that is effective or not. I believe that, all other
things being equal on unrestricted gTLDs, that ccTLDs are less valuable than the
generic gTLDs.
If and only if every ccTLD were to use its respective gTLDs
under a ccTLDs (e.g., business,XYZ.cc), then would the ccTLDs have an optimum utility/value.
The unrestricted gTLD (e.g.. business.XYC) may continue to dwarf the relevance of
the ccTLDs. However, I believe that for a true global economy to exist that
the unrestricted gTLD is of most value (e.g., business.web is the ultimate in gTLDs
for the business.web family).
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external
and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q11: Can lessons relevant to introduction
of new TLDs be learned from the recent decisions by a number of them to operate in
a globally open manner? If so, what lessons?
Yes, the lesson to be learned is that
ccTLDs should be used by convention for local uses (after all, the Internet is based
on the global goodwill and on convention). I think that with the very few exceptions
that we know about, that most countries will benefit more out of having a localized
used of their ccTLDs. I think that ICANN and/or the powers that be should have
a Benefit Costa Analysis requirement for any and all gTLDs that purport to go global,
as such a decision to go global will deplete otherwise finite resources (e.g., Ipv2,
etc.).
By convention, ICANN’s Board should seek the approval by all ccTLDs
to approve/not approve the use of a ccTLD for global use. Using a ccTLD in
an unrestricted manner and globally may cause more harm than good. I would
tend to see this as a “free-rider” approach of a public good (i.e., the Internet
is very much a public good and many may use it and get its benefits without following
the suggested rules or the suggested guidelines). However, with some policy
decisions based on agreements derived by a broad-based consensus, the Internet may
be a “coordinated” public good and may/is able to set some limits for the benefit
of the larger masses, even if one ccTLD has to be superseded by the greater good.
Do
a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
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.
This is a sensible recommendation. The fewer the domains the better. In fact, there
should be only one gTLD added and its use should only be operative at the ccTLD level
(e.g., xxxxx.xyz.us; xxxxxx,xyz.sv; xxxxxx.xyz.fr, etc.). No unrestricted gTLDs
should be released under any circumstances during this experimental phase.
I think that now is a good time to give the local level and the ccTLDs to get their
chance. The global ccTLDs have had theirs. For good all the good reason
which clearly outweigh any negative ones, the ccTLDs should be the only operative
units of the new gTLD.
After the initial rollout and some evaluative date
may become available, ICANN can (should it find it appropriate), release a new gTLD
restricted—or—unrestricted and/or release the unrestricted version of this upcoming
gTLD (e.g., xxxx.web.us - xxxx.web). This will give ICANN a window
to assess and compare the global gTLDs and the ccTLDs to be able to more effectively
address the extent of each.
Ultimately, ICANN’s optimal approach may be
to release some gTLDs at the ccTLD level while making others available at the global
level. In the case of the ccTLDs who have sold their rights to the ccTLD for
global use, the new gTLDs may have to be used there locally, while the global ccTLD
may continue to naturally gain appeal, if not otherwise restricted for global use,
and/or the Internet users may identify themselves more with their own respective
ccTLDs and their behaviors will correspond to use the ccTLDs rather than even an
unrestricted gTLD.
It’s up to ICANN to invite or discourage this consumer
behavior by making the ccTLDs the relevant unit of use and encourage the relevance
of ccTLDs or keep the status quo of ccTLDs (which seem less valuable in comparison
to unrestricted gTLDs).
The exclusive rollout at the ccTLD level will also
gain the approval of those who think that their XXXX.com will become less valuable,
or of some of those who think we do not need additional gTLDs. ICANN should
work things out with IANA so that anyone, in any part of the globe, could register
a ccTLD seamlessly and from any part of the world with registries based on any part
of the world able to get licensed to register ccTLDs for any other parts of the world
via Memoranda of Understanding.
For those who think that no new gTLDs are
needed, the argument that this gTLDs is intended to serve the ccTLDs unit of service
shall help explain the rationale to do release the ccTLD. The relevance of
the gTLD at the ccTLD level is desirable, logical, rational and defensible.
This is a good way to start the experiment of releasing parts or various gTLDs or
of releasing one across all ccTLDs, short of releasing it globally at the first beat.
Do
a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q13:
What steps should be taken to evaluate carefully the initial introduction of TLDs
before future introduction of additional TLDs?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do
an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Steps to be taken:
1) Do
a comprehensive Benefit Cost Analysis for each gTLD to be introduced, including all
the levels in which the ccTLD will operate (e.g., global/ccTLD; global only; ccTLD
only, etc.). Include tangible, intangibles, direct, indirect, real, shadow, discounted,
net present, and ratios for benefits and costs. Choose gTLDs and/or strategies that
have a benefit cost ratios, in net present value, where the benefit exceed the costs
in ratios, and the tangibles and intangibles are evaluated and assessed, so as to
choose an optimum approach/gTLD/or lack thereof.
2) Do a prospective Program Evaluation
of the gTLD implementation, including: goals, programs, proximate indicators, outcomes,
ruling-out of confounding variables, primary data and secondary data collection,
and cycles for data collection/analysis and reporting; qualitative and quantitative
data, etc.
3) Do a comprehensive, cohesive and integrated implementation plan –
this shall serve as a defensible tool to avert political pressure or to avert special
interest pressures to change the plan mid-stream and/or to do things wanted by special
interest regardless, if this pressures are not for the benefit of the public and/or
the stable and coordinated management of the Internet.
Q14: Should a fixed time
be established for all the evaluations, or should the time allow vary depending on
the nature of the TLD and other circumstances?
Times for evaluations should be
flexible. Some should be evaluated after the first data elements are available
(e.g., six months; others in 12 months; none should go beyond 18 months without some
sort of evaluative process follow-up).
The evaluations will be mostly determined
by the data elements decided to be collected/measured/traced; by the type of evaluation
method; by the type of goals; by the type of programs; by the type of proximate indicators;
by the experimental method(s) used; by the comparisons/lack-there-of in relation
to time/place/treatments. Most importantly, the evaluation shall be determined
by the policy priority setout for each gTLDs.
Q15: Should choices regarding the
types of TLDs included in the initial introduction seek to promote effective evaluation
of:
the feasibility and utility of different types of new TLDs? Yes.
the efficacy of different procedures for launching new TLDs? Yes.
different
policies under which the TLDs can be administered in the longer term? Yes.
different operational models for the registry and registrar functions? Yes, to the
extent that there will be differentiated models. (They should all be similar or should
be encouraged to be similar, sans the local capabilities/realities).
different
institutional structures for the formulation of registration and operation policies
within the TLD? Maybe. ICANN should be the global structure—no question about
this. Now, whether ICANN will delegate/sub-contract with ccTLDs or within the
TLD for the purpose of administering the TLD locally is something that is up to be
evaluated in terms of its feasibility, cost/benefit and long term sustainability
and stability of the Internet.
other factors? Rule-out confounding variables
that may skew the evaluations. Besides the importance in accounting for the
confounding variables in the evaluation, a reading of the external forces and trends
that affect the TLDs and the Internet is a fundamental thing to know in order to
act strategically and to recommend/set policy for the sustainable and stable management
of the Internet and, in turn for the powers that be, the derivatives from using the
Internet.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and
then decide.
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?
I
would prefer to see an economy of TLDs released. Even if a great number of
gTLDs seem as feasible or valuable for release. Mind you that the fact that
a given TLD is valuable and feasible for release, in the absence of other TLDs, does
not mean that the TLD will be as valuable in combination with the release of other
TLDs. Originally, the .com/.org/.edu have been sufficient to effectively draw
appeal to the web and mass utilization of the Internet.
These advantages can be
grouped in three broad categories: enhancement of competition in the provision of
registration services, enhancement of the utility of the DNS, and enhancement of
the available number of domain names.
1. Enhancing competition for registration
services.
One of the main motivations for the change in policy reflected in the
White Paper was a "widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in
domain name registration." At the time of the White Paper, registrations in the open
gTLDs (.com, .net, and .org) were made by a single source (Network Solutions) at
a price fixed by its cooperative agreement with the U. S. Government. Although registrations
were also available through over 200 ccTLDs worldwide, the overwhelming majority
of those ccTLDs were restricted to registrants that were affiliated with the countries
involved and the relatively few "open" ccTLDs were not extensively used.
Since
the establishment of ICANN in November 1998, the competitive conditions have changed
significantly. Beginning in June 1999, competition was introduced at the registrar
level for registration services and now 45 different accredited registrars receive
equivalent access to the central registry for .com, .net, and .org. Competition at
the registrar level is robust, resulting in prices significantly lower than a year
ago and a much larger array of service offerings from which consumers may choose.
In addition to this dramatic growth in competition in .com, .net, and .org, competition
from the ccTLDs has also increased. Many formerly "closed" ccTLDs have begun to permit
registrations by companies not affiliated with their countries; "open" ccTLDs have
become more accepted within registrants worldwide.
The encouragement of competition
in registration services continues to be a major goal of the Internet community.
In its 18/19 April 2000 statement, the Names Council stressed that "[i]mplementation
[of new TLDs] should promote competition in the domain-name registration business
at the registry and registrar levels."
Although competition has increased markedly
in the past year at the registrar level, the registry (the authoritative database
that maps names within the TLD to IP addresses) for all three "open" gTLDs is still
operated by a single company, Network Solutions. This situation limits the effectiveness
of overall competition and, even aside from strictly competitive issues, gives rise
to concerns over the Internet community's lack of vendor diversity. Some have argued
these concerns (competition and vendor diversity) make it appropriate to introduce
one or more alternative, fully open, globally available TLDs. Others have argued
that these concerns are no longer so pressing as to justify adding new open TLDs.
As discussed in detail in point 2 below, they assert that having additional, undifferentiated
TLDs would tend to reduce the utility of the DNS by increasing inter-TLD confusion.
(E.g., example.com would be confused with example.firm.)
One concern sometimes
raised in this connection is that .com may have become so highly preferred in the
market to any other TLD that effective competion among open TLDs is no longer likely.
Those raising this concern sometimes point out that .com enjoys a vastly superior
market share compared to .net and .org, with .com accounting for 80% of the total
registrations in .com, .net, and .org. This predominance of .com registrations continues
even though all three TLDs are offered by 45 registrars fiercely trying to sell registrations.
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?
Yes. This may be especially true in markets/region
that tend to be (or are) non-competitive and/or closed.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis;
do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q18: Should the desire for
diverse vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important motivation in adding
fully open TLDs?
I don’t see this as a cause effect relationships. The fact that
we want more diverse vendors has, IMHO, little relevance or motivating force to open
TLDs. (Maybe I need additional information as a framing for this question).
Do
a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q19:
Would the introduction of additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD
confusion among Internet users?
IMHO, the confusion will be directly (and hyper-exponentially)
related to the numbers of TLDs used. Making it undifferentiated across the
globe, will exacerbate the current problems and disputes over coveted names and over
trademark disputes.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning;
and then decide.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account, should one
or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
My answer is none
of the above. No TLD should be fully open in the initial introduction. Why
give out any leverage or reversibility ability by putting something fully open out.
Administrative discretion should be exercised here by ICANN, so as to “manage” the
extent/degree and coordinated rollout of the one TLD (please notice the singular).
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q21:
How many?
ONE and ONLY ONE for Now (whichever you choose, other than the .reg
one). I would roll-out two, if and only if the second one is the .REG one because
the .REG will help clean-up a lot of the trademark tensions (but it will not make
them go away because those self-similar names will also be contested, even if under
a non .REG TLD, IMHO), and the .REG will be of limited use to trademarks. However,
.REG does not settle the issue of who has been using the unregistered trademark first
and as to if multiple countries have a registration for a name but by different people.
I think that the .REG is a step in the right direction but it shifts a great deal
of the official processes and leaves the core reason of the .REG domain unaffected.
Once, someone registers a .REG, even if that person is not the first-one who used
it or . . . . (to make it short: .REG would still be messy).
Therefore,
I stick to my answer to rollout ONE and ONLY one. At least in this initial
phase, until the first reading of the evaluation can be analyzed and the faucet can
then be more prudently open to the fullest or a reversal of the implementation
is necessary. My position of the ONE and ONLY ONE is based on precedent (i.e.,
.COM) is so far the most popular domain (have the new domain overcome its own natural
“learning curve” against the .COM) and once the first one is established "umph" the
releases by another general use TLD (.e.g., ZYX) accompanied by a specialized use
TLD (e.g., .REG). Finally, rather than creating second TLD (e.g., “.REG”), I’ll rather
consider revising my previous position and would issue the unrestricted “.XYZ” to
those individuals/companies/organization whom, through an acceptable and legal way
or another, are able to produce evidence that they are the Trademark holders of the
name they wish to register.
Under this worse of two evils, I would choose
the lesser evil of making the unrestricted (“global”) domain to the one who first
used the trademark. Hence, if someone, somewhere in the world can prove that
he/she used the work “Corinthians” before anybody else, and I suspect it was not
a Soccer team in Brazil who first used this name, then that someone would get the
unrestricted use of the Corinthians.XYX domain, without the ccTLD—in this sense the
acknowledgment would be one of primacy and globally the first Corinthian. [[I
don’t claim to be a trademark expert – yet, I believed that the whole concept of
Intellectual Property vis-à-vis the global context may need to be revisited within
the next 20 years). Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning;
and then decide.
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs be in providing
effective competition to .com?
VERY EFFECTIVE. Competition in this context
will make some other people’s individual .COMs go down in value/price. I’m
sure they will have something else to say on this respect. However, in pure
competitive terms of TLD to TLD, the variations of domains that I’ve heard are very
promising. However, I need to caution you that the word “web” has no more special
meaning among most of the “non-English speakers,” outside of the countries such as
the United States.
The assumption made by many is that .WEB is universal,
but in reality .WEB IS NOT UNIVERSAL. “Web” in Spanish does not ring any familiar
bells, as opposed to “.Com” which sounds almost like taken out or “Comercio” [commerce];
“Compania” [company], etc.; or, “Org” which sounds like taken out of “Organizacion”
[organization]. Hence, although I don’t have any hard date to back up this
educated guess, .WEB in some non-English countries/speakers may have to be an “acquired”
behavior. I’m not saying it won’t happen; my point is that “.web” is not universal.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q23:
What can be done to maximize the prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive
to consumers as alternatives to .com?
Ideally, the first .XYZ’s to be rolled-out
and to actually hit the market should be tagged to products or services of wide popular
acceptance (e.g., Millionaires.xyz; or 60minutes.web; rollingstones.web; etc.).
Try to keep the disputes and the raw material for “bad news” out from occurring
by rolling-out a TLD that is nothing but good competition to the existing .com. Do
as much as possible for the debut of the .xyz to be nothing less than a Hollywood
premiere. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then
decide.
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. I would stay away from
rehashing the “.com” or using any of its variations.
I think that rather
than adding value to each (i.e., the 1.com / .com) you may draw value away from one
at the expense of the other or you may draw value away from both. In the case
of discretely different domains, (e.g., . XYZ vs. .COM), I think that both will tend
to create and evolve within their own identity niches and can equally thrive despite
or because of the other. Mind you, that several real businesses (even if they
are virtual) have managed to develop real market operations and that the livelihoods
of many of the employees of those companies (.coms or the .com portion of the operation)
will be affected. In pure economic terms, this may be irrelevant but in real
practical terms it does matter if you create a family to be displaced from jobs in
an area for “new” jobs in another area. True, the net effect of the .XYZ will
very likely be a positive one. However, it is most uncertain whether the third
level registry will be positive, negative, or no change.
I would be very
cautious in creating any more similarity between/among TLDs. We have enough
trademarks disputes going around; the business.e.com or business.1.com variations
seem to be inviting to undue controversy.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external
and internal scanning; and then decide.
2. Enhancing the utility of the DNS.
Another
motivation frequently cited for introducing new TLDs is that doing so might increase
the utility of the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of adding new TLDs should
be evaluated based on whether addition of the new TLDs:
would make it
easier for Internet users to find the web sites and other Internet resources they
are seeking and
would make it easier for the providers of Internet resources
to be found.
This view tends to favor adding special-purpose TLDs and to disfavor
adding undifferentiated, open TLDs. To help keep TLDs distinct and meaningful, it
has been suggested that TLDs should be given "charters" which define the purposes
for which they are intended. These charters are intended to promote the distinctiveness
of TLDs over time. Advocates of chartered TLDs note that all the present gTLDs (including
.com, .net, and .org) have defined uses, see RFC 1591. The definitions of the uses
of .com, .net, and .org, however, have not been enforced since 1996, when it was
decided to suspend screening of registrations to reduce delays in processing applications
for registration.
The view that enhancement of the utility of the DNS should be
a chief goal in introducing new TLDs is reflected by the first three principles outlined
in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental report:
"1.
Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed
TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived
by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the
proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than
English.
"2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism
for charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
"3. Differentiation: The selection
of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated
by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string."
A
few have suggested that these principles (which were approved in WG-C by a vote of
46 yes, 21 no, 1 abstain) preclude the introduction of any new fully open TLDs. These
people argue that introducing new unrestricted-use TLDs would not increase the availability
of distinctive domain names, but would instead decrease the meaning of domain names
generally by encouraging registration of domain names that are distinguished only
by non-meaningful TLD labels. While the principles of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental
report point strongly toward introducing limited-purpose, distinct TLDs, most of
those favoring them urge that they be applied flexibly so as not to rule out the
introduction of one or more fully open, undifferentiated TLDs.
Differentiated
types of TLDs that have been proposed for introduction under a chartered-TLD approach
include:
restricted-use commercial TLDs, such as .travel (for the travel
industry), .movie (for web sites dedicated to particular films), and .banc (for financial
institutions).
TLDs defined by some geographic region, but not qualifying
as ccTLDs under current policies.
a TLD restricted to adult uses (.xxx
or .sex).
TLDs designated for use by particular types of non-commercial
organizations, such as .museum and .union. An existing example of this type of TLD
is .edu.
TLDs for use by various affinity groups.
TLDs
intended for advocacy uses, such as .protest.
a TLD devoted to domains
registered by individuals for their personal use.
Some have suggested that differentiated
TLDs should be introduced in various systematic ways (e.g., by following a predefined
taxonomy). Others have favored introducing each specific TLD according to a proposal
by an organization interested in sponsoring the TLD that demonstrates the desire,
legitimacy, and resources to introduce and manage the TLD in an appropriate manner.
In
view of these considerations, public comment is sought on the following issues:
Q25:
Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal
in the introduction of new TLDs?
Most definitely. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do
an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q26: Would the introduction
of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?
It would not run
counter. But, it would not help to add meaning either. As a net effect, it
may add to mix of unqualified alternatives and to the information overflow faced
by people nowadays. Hence, though not running counter, the sheer size and weight
of an unrestricted TLD will add force to the confusion and meaningless information
mix. Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q27:
If so, are there ways of accommodating the goal of enhancing registry-level competition
with the goal of enhancing the utility of the DNS?
Yes there is ways to enhance
it. If technically possible, issue the TLD otherwise unrestricted at the ccTLD
level only. That is, DO NOT ISSUE GLOBALLY UNRESTIRCTED TLDs – NONE. Allow
the ccTLDs to do their “third-level chartering” of their TLD (e.g., www.xxxx.food.xyz.us)
[[this gives local control to the TLDs within the regions]]. If the ccTLDs
choose to keep their TLD unrestricted (e.g., www.groceries.xyz.us) , so be it.
But, if the ccTLDs want to keep it differentiated (e.g., www.bread.food.xyz.us ;
www.potato.food.xyz.us ; www.milk.food.xyz.us; etc.) let them choose their approach.
Again, I don’t know if this ccTLD assignments is possible while at the same time
suppressing the global release of the TLD (i.e., be able to issue: “.xyz.fr”
but not “.xyz” alone). Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning;
and then decide.
I find the charter approach mentioned confusing and linguistically-specific/restrictive
(e.g., “.museum” would work for English Speakers but not necessarily for Spanish
Speakers; Spanish Speakers would want their own “.museo”). In real terms, this
chartering business may lead to fragmentation of the web and specialization to the
point that it will only be meaningful to fewer target group. That targeted
kind of business, done by ICANN or by a global entity seems more appropriate for
the ccTLDs to define.
Besides, the .com/.org/.gov/.net are not words or
charters in themselves—they are SYMBOLS and symbols have many meanings to many people.
In these post-modern times, symbols are goods (ie., a “.com” symbol like a metaphor
or a TAUTOLOGY)—it means a lot of things but it doesn’t mean anything at all.
At this level of utility (i.e., at the TLD level symbols and tautologies are as good
as it should get). Let others, at the ccTLD, add their own meaning to their
TLDs, or not.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis and decide.
Q28: Is the concept of
TLD "charters" helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the DNS?
No, in
my view. As a guiding principle, I view the Internet as an integrating and
communication medium, across the masses. I think users must add their locally-defined
meanings but administratively/and technically all got from ICANN what everyone else
got, that is all got the same “.xyz” – which is the part that is under ICANN’s
purview to administer (or is it?). The “.xyz” is the common glue binding the
Internet not just philosophically but also technically and administratively.
If a given part of the world only runs a charter, they could be uninvolved in
other relevant aspects of the web, as long as their charter is not broken. TLD given
the limited information and the that I have had to this concept.
Do a Cost
Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q29: Are
the first three principles outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's
17 April 2000 supplemental report (quoted above) appropriate criteria for selecting
TLDs to be introduced in the first group?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external
and internal scanning; and then decide.
YES THEY ARE. HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD
BE A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH NOT A TOP –DOWN ONE. Meaning that, the locals should
decide, enforce and add meaning to their local use of the TLD (i.e., at the ccTLD
level) . ICANN as the global enforcer will step-in, as appropriate, only to
regulate that the ccTLD if the ccTLD steps out of its box and the stepping out of
the box would tend to disrupt or otherwise affect the other ccTLDs, in ways which
are unfair to those who should be kept harmless. ICANN’s top-down approach
would be in developing administrative tools, technical assistance and support in
order for the local level (i.e., the Regions and/or the ccTLDs to function effectively
and successfully).
Q30: Do those principles preclude the introduction of any new
fully open TLDs?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis and decide. I do not see how these
principles would preclude any new fully open TLD. Yet I would point out that
it seems to me that as stated, that the principles assume a top-down approach where
as I stated above (#29) a bottom-up approach (i.e., ccTLD and/or regional) is the
more desirable to enforce, add-meaning, and differentiate the use of the TLD.
Q31:
What types of TLDs should be included in the first group of additional TLDs to best
test the concept of chartered TLDs?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external
and internal scanning; and then decide.
I would recommend to not do the chartering
the way it has been conceptualized in the preamble for this questions set (e.g.,
getty.museum; smithsonian.museum—for reasons which I’ve mentioned above (Q#25 –Q#30);
for example, in Spanish “museum” is very meaningless to most; is neither differentiated;
nor undifferentiated; and would not be enforceable for all museums to want to use
a foreign word to label the place where a country keeps its natural treasures (e.g.,
“franciscogavidia.museum”; “joyadeceren.museum”; “zocalo.museum”).
Unless
ICANN decides to issue, the same word in all the different languages that want it,
this specific issuing of languages and of favoring some languages over the others
to meet demand may open ICANN to a very tedious administrative position and all of
its best efforts may not be sufficient to effectively and responsively meet each
local-corner’s demand for a charter. For those same reasons, I would recommend that
you allow the local level to do their own chartering at the “third domain level”
(e.g., getty.museums.XYZ.us ; smithsonian.museum.XYZ.us; etc.)
Q32: Should chartered
TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined system, or should proposals be evaluated
on an individualized basis?
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal
scanning; and then decide.
The predefined system in the eyes of ICANN should be
at the ccTLD level. Let the ccTLDs take it from there. Let them decide how they want
to split the ccTLD in locally meaningful ways. ICANN should cater to special
interest in one part of the world and overlook similar—and equitable interest all
over the world. The justifiable way of handling this is that ICANN has
left the “chartering of domains” for the local levels.
ICANN should resist
the temptation of creating every single “custom” “charter” domain. This does
not seem to add to the overall value of the Internet vis-à-vis its costs. If
we were to proceed in the chartering business, soon everyone will want their own
“charter” and how will ICANN be able to justifiably say no. I think that the
Internet is still in its infancy. Maybe chartering is the next step once the
Internet develops some more (i.e., what is the universe of “museums” names as compared
to the universe of “.com”/”.org”/”.XYZ”.
I would monitor this very closely in terms
of the costs and the benefits of such an action. Rather than looking at chartering
right now, ICANN should focus on effectively and successfully releasing and administering
a SINGLE TLD to be “chartered or otherwise” by each local ccTLD.
Do a Cost Benefit
analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Q33: If charter
proposals are evaluated on an individualized basis, should any steps should be taken
to promote stable and orderly evolution of the DNS overall?
The step that should
be taken is to delay this decision until the timing to fulfill this need is ripe.
For now, all there is to do, is to keep it in your radar screen.
Before proceeding
further, I would monitor this very closely in terms of the costs and the benefits
of such an action. My guess is that the costs associated with the “chartered”
domains may be as high as the cost of implementing/administering a gTLD. This
in its face does not seem to be an effective use of limited resources and energy,
at this very time, in the context that millions of people who could have equally
or more productive benefits/uses of the Internet do no have it right now.
Do a
Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.
Click
here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of New TLDs
3. Enhancing
the number of available domain names.
A third reason cited for introducing additional
TLDs is that doing so would increase the number of domain names available for registration.
This rationale is usually based on the premise that "all the good names are already
taken" and that adding TLDs would increase the supply of "good" names.
In fact,
the number of second-level domain names within a single TLD is quite large (over
1098) and claims that any particular TLD is effectively exhausted are, as a technical
matter, misplaced. (Even .com has only approximately 108 names registered). Some,
however, have noted that the group of useful or desirable names is much smaller than
the total theoretically possible. While this observation is correct, even a slight
lengthening of possible second-level domain names increases the available possibilities
much more dramatically than the addition of new TLDs. For example, under the currently
followed format rules increasing second-level domain-name length by one character
multiplies the possible domain names by 37, while adding three new TLDs similar to
.com, .net, and .org would only double them.
Some participants in the discussion
have asserted that adding undifferentiated TLDs for the purpose of increasing the
number of available domain names runs counter to the goal of enhancing the distinctness
of DNS names. In this view, adding names that differ from existing ones only because
they fall into new, undifferentiated TLDs would impair the utility of the DNS. These
participants argue that expansion of the DNS name space should not be accomplished
by making available additional names that are likely to be confused with existing
names, particularly since distinctive TLDs could instead be created.
Q34: Has the
inventory of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
I
would go based on my experience and on some extrapolation of the data cited above
that there are still plenty of meaningful word combinations. Especially, in the foreign
languages, and also in English if one uses an “e” or any other trendy combination.
I checked and found up over eight hundred very meaningful and very marketable
combinations. True, most of the single words (mono-logos) are gone because
as I understand it some people just went across the whole dictionary, with few discriminates,
and by a combination of these practices “secured through their hard-earned dollars”
most of the imaginable names/one-words that anyone would want. I do not know
if all those domains are up and running; I doubt they are. However, words such as
“Google” ; “fog dog” ; etc. have a cool ring to it and are very, very successful.
Having said this, I do recommend exploring the feasibility of adding ONE and ONLY
ONE Additional TLD.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and internal scanning;
and then decide.
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?
This question is not clear to me what you mean by “adding TLDs
that are not differentiated from the present ones”, perhaps it’s because of the double
negative. I’ll take a crack at it: if your questions is: “should the added
TLDs be different than the present ones. My answer to this is: YES, NEW TLDs
NEED TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT ONES.
I recommend you do a cost benefit analysis;
an external scanning; an internal scanning; and, then decide.
D. Delegation
of policy-formulation requirements for special-purpose TLDs.
As envisioned by
the White Paper, ICANN is responsible for overall coordination of the DNS. In view
of the hierarchical nature of the DNS, however, the responsibility for establishment
of policies within TLDs varies depending on the nature of the TLD. Policies for fully
open TLDs (such as .com, .net, and .org) are formulated through the ICANN process,
which involves participation of all segments of the global Internet community. Policies
for other TLDs (such as .edu and the ccTLDs), on the other hand, have been formulated
by focused constituencies.
Proponents of limited-purpose TLDs have advocated a
"sponsorship" paradigm, in which policy-formulation responsibility for the TLD would
be delegated to an organization that allows participation of the affected segments
of the relevant communities. The sponsoring organization would have authority to
make decisions regarding policies applicable to the TLD, provided they are within
the scope of the TLD's charter and comport with requirements concerning interoperability,
availability of registration data, and the like intended to ensure that the interests
of the overall Internet are served. For example, the TLD .museum might be sponsored
by an association of museums and the .union TLD might be sponsored by a group of
labor unions. In many respects, the sponsorship paradigm is a generalization of the
concepts underlying appointment of managers for ccTLDs under existing ccTLD delegation
policy.
According to proponents, the sponsorship paradigm has the advantages of
allowing detailed policies for limited-purpose TLDs to be established through an
easily manageable process in which those with relevant interests can participate,
while allowing the more broadly participatory ICANN process to focus on issues of
general interest to the entire Internet community.
Q36: Should the formulation
of policies for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In
all cases or only in some?
Formulation of policies should be delegated, in a qualified
manner whereby ICANN retains a right to monitor the delegation via Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) and/or contract(s), so that the local units have local-control over their use
of the ccTLD and the TLD. Of course, not in all cases, as there may be exceptions.
Perhaps in most cases ICANN would need to delegate via MOU/Contract this, but not
divorce itself entirely, as some level of MOU/Contract monitoring would need to take
place to ensure a global/general seamless of approach and an integrated and coordinated
implementation of current and future TLDs.
Q37: What measures should be employed
to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is appropriately representative
of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
Build performance measures in the MOUs/Contract
and have specific language in the scope of work and statement of duties to be performed
by the agency to effectively and affirmatively include and service all intended target
groups, populations and stakeholders.
Require Monthly Management Reports. Centralize
the collection of funds at ICANN and reconcile invoices submitted by the sponsoring
organization via a quarterly reconciliation process, which includes performance measures
and incentives.
Have a random monitoring systems toward quality assurance and
acceptable levels of service.
Provide a central website where complaints
can be filled at that website.
Follow-up on complaints so that providers
evaluate and effectively resolve the complaint and provide effective services, as
appropriate, to complainant.
Have a financial sanction component built in
for any violation that is not satisfactorily cured.
Rate the MOU/Contract
and compensate/withhold compensation as to the terms of the MOU/Contract.
Institute
a fair –hearing and/or administrative review mechanism (or the local agency needs
to says how they will do this) in order to provide effective services and access.
Encourage that the selection of providers be done through a competitive process
and/or a sole-source process if there are no other qualified bidders.
Have
formal and informal ways of enforcing and following-up with these items.
Do
not renew and/or do not relet the contract (see how it can be taken over by some
other provider instead or take legal recourse or terminate provider if provider is
not effectively doing what it agreed to do.
Have a liquidated damages clause.
In order words, you get the gist: it’s all a matter of contracts (it is not even
legislative or policy-making; it’s all administrative).
Q38: In cases where sponsoring
organizations are appointed, what measures should be established to ensure that the
interests of the global Internet community are served in the operation of the TLD?
ICANN
if you maintain most if not all of the financial control—almost like Health Maintenance
Organizations (HMOs) do—and then have some way to reward or withhold rewards based
on performance, and not just by agency—but make it competitive by regions and within
regions to reward best-practices.
This measure of reward and power to withhold
reward may be a powerful tool.
Institute a best-practices forum whereby
those agencies doing benchmark work get recognized and elevate the bar for the other
ones. Even if all you can do is cheer good work while even staying silent about
the not so good work, these elemental Organizational Theory principles and techniques
do go a long way. Organizations are not much different than other life
forms or creatures. Ideally though, do try to maintain some kind of performance-based
pay and to collect portion if not most of those funds centrally to later distribute
them according to the contract/service levels. Also, ICANN , you could charge
for your technical assistance to these organizations; require that they attend training
and a staff development program etc. which are all compatible and standard across
the global context.
Q39: How should global policy requirements (adherence to a
TLD's charter, requirements of representativeness, interoperability requirements,
etc.) be enforced?
As some of the ccTLDs cases may have shown, good faith and good
intentions are not always equally understood by both sides of a negotiating team
and “people find loopholes to the rules.” Make the delegation of powers to
the local agency contingent upon performance measures.
Should anyone blatantly
breach the MOUs/contracts/agreements, then follow-up with progressive measures to
try to get compliance. To this end, I would recommend that you make whatever
software and hardware proprietary, belonging to ICANN even if the Moines will eventually
come out of the royalties paid by the sponsored organization. In case of contract
breach, ICANN could call the hardware and software and would restrain further technical
assistance, unless the organization cures the breach and/or provide adequate remedies.
Build in ability to bring legal action (or to arbitration) by neutral parties.
Continually, but reasonably, update content and material of proprietary software/hardware/technical-assistance
to provide a consistent across the board services and to keep close communications
with local sponsoring organization.
Have some leverage in the way you develop
implementation plans.
Have a quarterly newsletter and circulate it to all
the key stakeholders for the organization.
Hold regular monthly/quarterly
meeting just for the purpose of discussing the Regional-Inter Regional developments.
Have a designate liaison between ICANN and the region/subregion/ccTLD via the represented
structural units within ICANN. Any breach or problem with provider should not
come as a surprise to the liaison, to you ICANN or to your officers. The liaisons
should work with the local ccTLDs administer and understand/implement the requirements
from ICANN. The liaisons could also serve the role of MOU/Contract managers.
E.
New TLDs to meet new types of needs.
The 18/19 April Names Council statement recommended
that the initial introduction of new TLDs include a variety of types of TLDs. Such
a diversity in the initial introduction can provide useful data to determine what
types of TLDs should be introduced in the future. In addition, introducing diverse
types of special-purpose TLDs provides the opportunity to meet short-term needs for
TLDs that are not met by the existing TLDs.
Q40: Are there any types of new TLDs
that should not be included in the initial introduction? If any types should be excluded,
why?
Exclude derivatives of the current TLDs. Exclude “English-only” TLDs because
English is meaningful only to those who have been exposed or used the Language.
The Internet is global and should be allowed to be relevant even under special circumstances
of local identity. That is I would recommend Symbolic three-letter TLDs over English-only
TLDs AND/OR English-Only TLDs over another language specific TLDs, except Latin/Greek.
Exclude
any TLD, which will shift the burden of verifying “trademark rights” from the official
channels (e.g., the U.S. Patent Office), to the registries, including but not limited
to “.REG”.
Exclude TLDs that have been vastly pre-registered on the basis of speculation
(e.g., but not limited to “.WEB”) so that everyone starts with a clean slate and
to avoid the preempting of future policy decisions. This would all be policy
calls from ICANN which will serve to establish its independence and autonomy in decision
making, despite the forces of speculation and hence backing-into the created urgency
over what should be an otherwise a process which seeks the greater good and solutions
which benefit a broad constituency, not just the few who are able to amass TLDs prior
to their release. It seems that the pre-registered TLDs and the advocacy which
develops after people/organizations have pre-registered them otherwise obscure the
real need to maintain the long-term of the Internet and its stability, while giving
the perception of “inside trading” and “hijacking of an otherwise fair process.”
No one benefits from this behavior of pre-registrations as there is no Gross Domestic
Product, nor other means to assess a portion of the overpriced proceeds to refuel
the Internet or the economy in general – the squatter is better-off while the rest
is not, and the bonafide owner of the name is worse-off (case in point: cocacola.web).
ICANN should make decisions so as to discourage “speculation”, “cybersquatting”
and /or “unfair business practices.” This is not to say that all the pre-registrants
are “squatters”. Everyone can be his or her own judge.
My point is
that ICANN should set the record straight as to where it stands on speculation-driven
pre-registrations and on the potential for unfair/preempted policy decisions.
Send a clear message that the Internet exists for the benefit of the greater good,
not for just a few. Besides, no matter what the TLD, the ones with the bonafide
trademarks will prevail.
This is not to say that “.WEB” or “.REG” should
never be released. Not releasing them now is only a step to provide for a “cooling-off
period” and a satisfactory resolution to the already pre-registered “.WEB” domains.
ICANN can exercise its discretion to release or not release these “issue-driven”
domains at a later date. Here and now, the holders of the “.WEB”, myself included,
have no greater property claims on the domain since ICANN has not made any promises
to anybody to uphold the “.WEB” gTLD.
Also, the TLDs shall be implemented in a
way that the most utility can be obtained out of single popular words/combinations.
Reserving the unrestricted gTLD for a later date (or for trademark holders only)
while only releasing the gTLD for ccTLD specific-use will be an optimum way to accomplish
maximum utility.
Start clean and develop/market a neutral, yet catchy, TLD such
as something taken from chemistry or physics or math or what have you, which is universally
recognized, for example: “.H20” (water: ¾ of earth); “.14K” (14 Karat gold), “.EMC2”
(Einstein) , “.FMA” (Newton); “.ABC” (alphabet—not the Communications network); “.FPO”
(for-profit-organization); “.CBO” (community based organization); “.TLD” (Top Level
Domain—recognized by many already); “.URL” (Universe Resource Locator—recognized
by many already); “.PAX” (peace); “.MM” (2000 in roman numerals—could be of limited
release); “.10+” (ten plus; or female); “.0->” (male); “.PDQ” (quick); “.VFR” (visual
flying reference); “99k”; “.$$$”; “.AAA”; “.BIO” (Life); “.LOGOS”; “.XXI” (21st Century);
“.101” (introductory college course-like); etc. These TLDs I mention are just
food for thought and in now way do I advocate that they be part or that they not
be part of the final “TLD released.” It’s all in the best judgment of the ICANN
leadership to choose an option which fulfills the values of the stakeholders who
will decide/effect a decision or a choice to be made.
My rationales above are based
on principles of ethical and fair policy making.
F. Start-up challenges and the
protection of intellectual property.
The statement adopted by the DNSO Names Council
on 18/19 April 2000 urged that, in connection with the implementation of a policy
for introducing new TLDs, due regard be given to "promoting orderly registration
of names during the initial phases." On 15 May 2000, Working Group B issued its final
report, which amplified on the concern that the startup phases of new TLDs can pose
special risks to intellectual property and found consensus that some type of mechanism,
yet to be determined, is necessary in connection with famous trademarks and the operation
of the Domain Name System.
In its statement of 19 May 2000, adopted after considering
Working Group B's final report, the Names Council concluded that there is community
consensus and recommended that there be varying degrees of protection for intellectual
property during the startup phase of new top-level domains.
One method of protecting
intellectual property that has been proposed is to prohibit the registration of famous
and well-known trademarks. Indeed, the White Paper suggested that ICANN consider
adopting "policies that exclude, either pro-actively or retroactively, certain famous
trademarks from being used as domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the designated
trademark holder." In its deliberations, Working Group B extensively explored the
use of a famous-names list for exclusion and reached consensus that such a list was
not necessary or appropriate at the present time. In its 19 May 2000 statement, the
Names Council "conclude[d] that there is no consensus in the community at the present
time that such a list should be adopted by ICANN." Thus, it seems clear that measures
other than a famous-names list for the protection of intellectual property during
the start-up phases of new TLDs must be considered.
The Names Council also concluded
that different types of TLDs warrant different types of protection for intellectual
property. For example, some have reasoned that more protections are appropriate in
a commercial TLD than in one designated for non-commercial uses.
Along with its
recommendation for varying intellectual-property protections depending on the type
of TLD, the Names Council also recommended that, as a minimum, the basic methods
for enforcing infringed rights should always apply. In its 19 May 2000 statement,
the Names Council recommended that the existing procedures (the UDRP and conventionally
available legal proceedings) should apply where a domain name registrant in a chartered
TLD violates the charter or other legal enforceable rights.
Concerns over the
effectiveness of the UDRP have prompted some in the DNSO Business Constituency to
propose that the policy be evaluated and overhauled before any new TLDs are introduced.
For example, as of 13 June 2000 the Business Constituency was considering version
5 of a position paper entitled "A practical approach to new Internet domain names,"
which (as one option) proposed a multi-phase process under which there would be several
prerequisites to the introduction of new TLDs:
"Phase I
"1. Rapidly evaluate
the first 12 months operation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (implemented
24 October 1999), and subject to a conclusion that it has been successful in meeting
its objectives, proceed to phase II.
"2. Extend the UDRP wef 1st October 2000
to evaluate claims for ownership transfer based on the relevance of a well-known
trademark to a charter gTLD. Once implemented proceed to phase II.
"Phase II
"Introduce
new gTLDs in a gradual but systematic way as outlined above, testing each proposed
gTLD against the principles."
Based on the likely implementation schedule (see
below), it is the assessment of the ICANN staff that such a phased approach would
result in a delay in the introduction of new TLDs of nine months or more.
Q41:
Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights
that warrant additional protections?
Yes. I strongly recommend the above stated
process; it is consistent with the Benefit-Cost-Analysis and the Program Evaluation
component I’ve been recommending all along. Yes, yes, yes, to systematic
yet measured release; yes, yes, yes to famous trademarks. This principles add
much more power to not adopt the “popular” preempted/speculative TLDs (i.e., “.W!B”).
Also,
I would restate what I’ve said all along in the other previous responses: only release
unrestricted TLDs at the ccTLD, not globally unrestricted, and let the ccTLDs determine
their own “chartered” domains, out of the generally released-single TLD worldwide
(e.g., “!!!.XYX.** ; where ** means country code according to the adopted ISO nomenclature)
according to local meanings and differentiation.
Q42: Should the protections afforded
intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type
of TLD?
Not really. A trademark is not mutually exclusive to commercial domains.
Perhaps the few non-commercials that registers are “all” trademarked. Certainly,
this is a hyperbole; however, why make the distinction (how do you protect the non-threshold
organizations who nevertheless have a legitimate claim to the procedural protection
you provide the commercials (other than is more administratively efficient to do
so)? The trademark principles should apply equally to all TLDs and to all realms.
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? Are there any other protections that should
be made available in all new TLDs, regardless of their type?
Yes the UDRP and the
court proceedings are appropriate. As you may be aware, that anyone who thinks
that his or her domains/property/interests have/has lost value (or are in any way
affected) due to the release of the new TLD may have a standing in an administrative
and/or (tort) legal action per the “interested parties” rights to judicial review
and compensation.
To this end, any new gTLD action, or inaction may prompt
people to file administrative complaints and /or to seek remedies for damages.
I would recommend that ICANN seeks and obtains professional legal counsel on these
actions, as in all the actions/lack-of-actions discussed, and to establish, as appropriate,
a clear judicial review process to otherwise reduce unnecessary court filings.
Q44:
Does the start up of a new TLD pose difficulties for those other than intellectual
property owners that should be addressed through special procedures?
Yes. Please
see response to Q43 as an example.
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?
Start
with a clean slate TLD. Only allow unrestricted TLD registration at the ccTLD level;
ccTLDs should be responsible to build the “fairness” features as recommended/required
by ICANN (e.g., open competitive registration; recommended parsing by charter at
third levels of the domain within the ccTLD; etc.). – Please see responses to questions
above, Q 34 Response through Q 44 Response, inclusive, especially Q40.
Additionally,
to restate the above responses, do not allow the unrestricted use of the gTLD, except
for those holding a famous name/trademark or anyone who can prove he or she possesses
a “seasoned” trademark (e.g., officially recognized by a patenting office at least
12 months prior to the date of the requested unrestricted gTLD registration).
ICANN should hold –on the release of the unrestricted gTLD globally, sans the ccTLDs
broad use of the domain, until the ccTLD seem to have saturated the domain and their
“meaningfully specific charters have ran out” and/or until ICANN determines that
such a global release is warranted for the benefit of the public good and the Internet.
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 appropriate in the future?
Yes the exclusion of globally famous
trademarks is warranted; however, in practical terms fewer than the universe of trademarks
can really be classified as absolute “globally famous trademarks”. Duplications
of the same trademarks and uses by different holders may be legal in various trademark-granting
jurisdictions making this exclusion less effective in achieving its purpose.
Yes,
future release of gTLDs should avert the need for the trademark holders to keep re-registering
their trademarks. This is not a requirement imposed on ICANN but is good policymaking.
Ease-off the burden to the judicial, administrative, systemic floods of unnecessary
complaints and strains. Adopt a set of principles and criteria for this purpose
and the policy will have made a good faith effort to address (or initiate to address)
this complex issues (i.e., trademark vis-à-vis the Internet).
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, it should not hold
the completion of the UDRP. Recent data and values on the proximate indicators
should give a quick and reasonable assessment of this policy.
Based on what
I have read, and the fact that the U.S. Congress passed the Cybersquatting Act, everything
seems to indicate that the URDP is being effective.
However, a benefit-cost analysis
of the proposed implementation alternatives should be done before implementing the
release of any gTLDs, provided that the BCA indicate that the implementation of the
gTLD is valuable ( in terms of the Net Present Value Benefit/Cost ration of tangibles
and appropriate weighing of the intangibles)
Q48: Should introduction of new TLDs
await extension of the UDRP to cover claims for transfer of domain names based on
the relevance of a well-known trademark to a chartered gTLD? How long would implementing
such a revision to the UDRP likely take?
Not necessarily. Incremental refinements
should proceed as planned on the UDRP schedule and any revisions/provisions be made
applicable to all domains in general, new or otherwise.
III. Suggested Schedule
for the Introduction of New TLDs
The following is a draft schedule for the initial
introduction of new TLDs:
13 June 2000 - Initial Postings and Drafts:
Background.
Suggested Principles for the Introduction of New TLDs
Suggested Schedule for the Introduction of New TLDs
Suggested Data Elements
to Be Sought from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs
Call for Statements of Interest in Proposing a New TLD
In conjunction with these
postings, a web-based public comment forum is established to receive comments on
the introduction of new TLDs.
15 July 2000 - ICANN Public Forum, Yokohama
A
portion of the Yokohama agenda will be devoted to policies and timelines for the
introduction of new TLDs. The public forum is an opportunity for public comment and
dialogue, either in person or through the webcast's online remote participation tools.
16
July 2000 - ICANN Board meeting, Yokohama
The ICANN Board will consider the Names
Council's 18/19 April 2000 recommendation that the Board adopt "a policy for the
introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner . . . ," as well as
the Names Council's 19 May 2000 recommendations concerning protection for intellectual
property during the startup phase of new top-level domains.
1 August 2000 - Call
for Proposals
ICANN will issue a formal call for proposals, accompanied by a New
TLD Registry Application Form, instructions for filling out the application, and
a statement of criteria for the Board’s eventual decision.
It is proposed that
the New TLD Registry Application Form include the elements shown in Part IV below.
Because ICANN will seek heterogeneity and diversity in applicants' TLD models, none
of the data elements should be read to restrict or preclude a particular TLD proposal.
Comments about these proposed application elements should be posted in the public
comment forum.
1 October 2000 - Deadline for Proposals
All proposals received
by the 1 October deadline will be made public on the ICANN website as to the data
elements in I and III described in Part VI below. Proposals will be posted when received,
rather than waiting until 1 October to post. Comments on the proposals will be solicited
through the public comment forum that will be created for that purpose. No additional
proposals will be accepted after this date.
8 October 2000 - Deadline for Public
Comments on Proposals
This deadline will ensure that at least 1 week is available
for public comments on all proposals; to the extent that proposals are received prior
to 1 October, the comment period will be longer for those proposals.
1 November
2000 - Announcement of Decision
ICANN will announce the decision as to the first
group of new TLDs to be added to the DNS root.
1 December 2000 - Completion of
Registry Contracts
Deadline for ICANN and the selected registry applicants to
sign and publish the new registry contracts.
In connection with the foregoing suggested
schedule, public comment on the following topics is especially solicited:
Q49:
Does the schedule allow sufficient time for formulation of proposals?
YES. I would
just recommend that concurrent or before completing the milestones/critical activities
in the timeline, that the Board be presented with a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) for
each recommendation to assist the Board in making an informed decision. It
is only fair to the public at large, to the constituencies, to the global Internet
community, to ICANN and to the Board.
Believe me, a BCA-based decision will
be more defensible and legitimate in cases of disputes and/or of special interest-driven
political jousting. The BCA findings could be shared for public review prior as part
of everything else presented for public review prior to the adoption of the gTLDs
that pass muster.
Q50: Does the schedule allow sufficient time for public comment?
No.
If ICANN would, in the spirit of its delegated authority by the Department of Commerce,
would follow the shorter generally accepted, and shortest of the public notice process,
Informal rule Making Process (i.e., not a formal or hybrid one), the process should
at least:
a) publish the notice of proposed rule making (e.g., 2 weeks in advance);
b) give interested people the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process
(e.g., generally ongoing and “hearing” for specifics); and
c) issue final rules
(giving at least 30 days notice) with a concise statement of purpose. (Administrative
Procedure Act (5 USCS Sect. 553 et seq.).
Under California law, the Welfare
and Institutions Codes and other similar Codes/stipulations apply. These meetings
and rulemakings are both under the Brown Act (California) and the Sunshine Act (Federal)
which both have stipulated and required provisions for open/public “government” based
on the powers that created the body making policy and for the purpose that it was
created.
It’s clear under the color of law that ICANN “makes” policy, even
if this is only “technical” or “coordinating in nature”.
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?
YES. The freedom of Information
Act and all other government principles seem to apply to ICANN (even if this is a
disputable premise/conclusion either by ICANN or by other parties).
Besides the
public releases in mass, all those who request to be notified about non-exempt information
should be so notified and provided with all unexampled information in a reasonable
time frame so as to allow appropriate review and/or appropriate notification/response.
Also, please see response to Q50.
Q52: Should the formal applications be posted
in full for public comment? If not, which parts of the applications should remain
private?
All non-trade-secrets and/or proprietary information and/or non-exempted
information should be categorized and posted for the public to reasonably make sense
of the information and to have adequate responses. This shall be done in a
businesslike manner the way that ICANN has done things to this date and by allowing
the public, [[respectfully said by the writer here]] not ICANN, to determine what
is relevant and important to the public.
IV. Suggested Data Elements to Be Sought
from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs
The following is a general
proposal for the data elements that should be requested of those proposing to operate
or sponsor new TLDs. The actual application would likely require more detail as to
these elements:
I. Information about the Proposed TLD
A. Proposed TLD label
(i.e., the string of letters identifying the TLD, such as .com, .net, .org, etc.)
Questions
for public comment:
Q53: Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or numerous
possibilities?
Choose a single TLD, ideally the optimum from among a group of valuable
TLDs as concluded by a Benefit Cost Analysis for each of the TLDs. From that
single TLD, select numerous possibilities for implementation as presented by the
ccTLDs as a block and umbrella for all the registries within that ccTLD. Hence, choose
one TLD and choose consistent possibilities between/among/within ccTLDs so as to
serve the diverse needs of the Internet community.
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
consultative process should take the form of a systematic Cost Benefit Analysis per
TLD; this can be an open process. ICANN would then take into consideration
all recommendations from the applicants, the public and the registries. Upon considering
all these recommendation and available information, including BCA and evaluation
component, ICANN should set a set of criteria for choosing among the TLDs.
Based on the recommendations and the criteria set forth, ICANN should choose up to
three TLDs that best fit the comments and the adopted policies/principles/strategies.
In a caucus or meeting in which ICANN is represented by 50% of the total caucus representatives
(e.g., 15 from ICANN) and (e.g., 15 members) of the public and the proposes make
the other 50% (the whole group should not exceed 30 people), the TLD to be adopted
by consensus should be recommended for implementation. Besides, the one TLD accepted
by consensus for implementation, up to three additional TLDs shall be selected and
ranked for future scheduled implementation in order of rank.
In the event
that consensus is not reached on any one of the TLDs presented to the caucus, only
the equivalent of a single TLD shall be released, even if this means that out each
of the Three TLDs will have to be partially operative/released in a very localized
region or given ccTLD, regardless of who proposed the prevailing TLDs. In the event
that consensus is not reached, assignment of TLD implementation shall be done by
consensus; if consensus is not reached, random assignment of TLD by region should
be done to select a TLD for each of the represented regions.
The caucus can also
select to adopt the one TLD with the majority vote. Such adoption of the majority-vote
TLD shall be by consensus. Ideally, as consensus in this context would be paramount,
the initial rollout should be of one single TLD. The TLD with the highest score (i.e.,
unanimous consensus) shall be ranked as more desirable.
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?
Ideally TLD codes shall remain
at three characters (so as to keep all things being equal with the existing domain,
to the extent possible).
In very rare cases, a four characters (or numbers or
combination of letters and numbers) can be considered.
For the most part, the
three-character domain would be considered more valuable the longer or shorter ones.
Restrictions
to avoid conflicts with ISO 3166-1 should be decided in the context of a prospective
cost-benefit analysis and program evaluation analysis. The pros and cons should
be weighed and decided accordingly. The general principle would be that ISO
3166-1conflicts would be random and, to some extent, minimal/unavoidable.
Q56:
Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels that are established (for
example, a prohibition of country names)?
No additional restrictions should be
place on Country names. Country names are very popular in hyperlinks and domains
as people form use the country name for sense making, identity and culturally valuable
purposes. Since if my proposed ccTLD level of control is considered, the ccTLD will
have the ability to restrict (or not) the country name(s) serviced by that ccTLD.
Q57:
What should be the criteria for selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English
language TLD labels be favored?
EXCERPT FROM Q27: “ . . . Besides, the .com/.org/.gov/.net
are not words or charters in themselves—they are SYMBOLS and symbols have many meanings
to many people. In these post-modern times, symbols are goods (i.e., a “.com”
symbol like a metaphor or a TAUTOLOGY)—it means a lot of things but it doesn’t mean
anything at all. At this level of utility (i.e., at the TLD level symbols and
tautologies are as good as it should get). Let others, at the ccTLD, add their
own meaning to their TLDs, or not. Do a Cost Benefit analysis and decide. That is
I would recommend Symbolic three-letter TLDs over English-only TLDs AND/OR English-Only
TLDs over another language specific TLDs, except Latin/Greek.”
EXCERPT FROM Q40:
“Exclude “English-only” TLDs because English is meaningful only to those who have
been exposed or used the Language. The Internet is global and should be allowed
to be relevant even under special circumstances of local identity.”
EXERPT FROM
Q40 (CONT.) “Also, the TLDs shall be implemented in a way that the most utility can
be obtained out of single popular words/combinations. Reserving the unrestricted
gTLD for a later date (or for trademark holders only) while only releasing the gTLD
for ccTLD specific-use will be an optimum way to accomplish maximum utility.
Start
clean and develop/market a neutral, yet catchy, TLD such as something taken from
chemistry or physics or math or what have you, which is universally recognized, for
example: “.H20” (water: ¾ of earth); “.14K” (14 Karat gold), “.EMC2” (Einstein) ,
“.FMA” (Newton); “.ABC” (alphabet—not the Communications network); “.FPO” (for-profit-organization);
“.CBO” (community based organization); “.TLD” (Top Level Domain—recognized by many
already); “.URL” (Universe Resource Locator—recognized by many already); “.PAX” (peace);
“.MM” (2000 in roman numerals—could be of limited release); “.10+” (ten plus; or
female); “.0->” (male); “.PDQ” (quick); “.VFR” (visual flying reference); “99k”;
“.$$$”; “.AAA”; “.BIO” (Life); “.LOGOS”; “.XXI” (21st Century); “.101” (introductory
college course-like); etc. These TLDs I mention are just food for thought and
in now way do I advocate that they be part or that they not be part of the final
“TLD released.” It’s all in the best judgment of the ICANN leadership to choose
an option which fulfills the values of the stakeholders who will decide/effect a
decision or a choice to be made.
My rationales above are based on principles of
ethical and fair policy making.”
B. Type of TLD, such as but not limited to:
1.
Unrestricted (e.g., .com)
Q45 Response Excerpt: “Start with a clean slate TLD.
Only allow unrestricted TLD registration at the ccTLD level; ccTLDs should be responsible
to build the “fairness” features as recommended/required by ICANN (e.g., open competitive
registration; recommended parsing by charter at third levels of the domain within
the ccTLD; etc.). – Please see responses to questions above, Q 34 Response through
Q 44 Response, inclusive, especially Q40. Additionally, to restate the above
responses, do not allow the unrestricted use of the gTLD, except for those holding
a famous name/trademark or anyone who can prove he or she possesses a “seasoned”
trademark (e.g., officially recognized by a patenting office at least 12 months prior
to the date of the requested unrestricted gTLD registration).
ICANN should
hold –on the release of the unrestricted gTLD globally, sans the ccTLDs broad use
of the domain, until the ccTLD seem to have saturated the domain and their “meaningfully
specific charters have ran out” and/or until ICANN determines that such a global
release is warranted for the benefit of the public good and the Internet.”
Q53
REAPONSE EXCERPT: “Choose a single TLD, ideally the optimum from among a group of
valuable TLDs as concluded by a Benefit Cost Analysis for each of the TLDs.
From that single TLD, select numerous possibilities for implementation as presented
by the ccTLDs as a block and umbrella for all the registries within that ccTLD. Hence,
choose one TLD and choose consistent possibilities between/among/within ccTLDs so
as to serve the diverse needs of the Internet community. “
2. Unrestricted with
definition or semantic meaning, but no enforcement (e.g., .org)
Q41 RESPONSE EXCERPT:
“Also, I would restate what I’ve said all along in the other previous responses:
only release [One Single] unrestricted TLD at the ccTLD, not globally unrestricted,
and let the ccTLDs determine their own “chartered” domains, out of the generally
released-single TLD worldwide (e.g., “!!!.XYX.** ; where ** means country code according
to the adopted ISO nomenclature) according to local meanings and differentiation.”
Q39
RESPONSE EXERPT (RE: ENFORCEMENT) :
“As some of the ccTLDs cases may have shown,
good faith and good intentions are not always equally understood by both sides of
a negotiating team and “people find loopholes to the rules.” Make the delegation
of powers to the local agency contingent upon performance measures. Should
anyone blatantly breach the MOUs/contracts/agreements, then follow-up with progressive
measures to try to get compliance. To this end, I would recommend that you
make whatever software and hardware proprietary, belonging to ICANN even if the Moines
will eventually come out of the royalties paid by the sponsored organization.
In case of contract breach, ICANN could call the hardware and software and would
restrain further technical assistance, unless the organization cures the breach and/or
provide adequate remedies. Build in ability to bring legal action (or to arbitration)
by neutral parties. Continually, but reasonably, update content and material
of proprietary software/hardware/technical-assistance to provide a consistent across
the board services and to keep close communications with local sponsoring organization.
Have some leverage in the way you develop implementation plans. Have a quarterly
newsletter and circulate it to all the key stakeholders for the organization.
Hold regular monthly/quarterly meeting just for the purpose of discussing the Regional-Intra
Regional developments. Have a designate liaison between ICANN and the region/subregion/ccTLD
via the represented structural units within ICANN. Any breach or problem with
provider should not come as a surprise to the liaison, to you ICANN or to your officers.
The liaisons should work with the local ccTLDs administer and understand/implement
the requirements from ICANN. The liaisons could also serve the role of MOU/Contract
managers.”
Please also reference responses to Q20 through Q41, inclusive.
3.
Restricted to a particular class of registrants or particular uses ("sponsored" or
"chartered", e.g., .edu)
Q33 RESPONSE EXCERPT:
“The predefined system in the
eyes of ICANN should be at the ccTLD level. Let the ccTLDs take it from there. Let
them decide how they want to split the ccTLD in locally meaningful ways. ICANN
should cater to special interest in one part of the world and overlook similar—and
equitable interest all over the world. The justifiable way of handling this
is that ICANN has left the “chartering of domains” for the local levels.
ICANN should resist the temptation of creating every single “custom” “charter” domain.
This does not seem to add to the overall value of the Internet vis-à-vis its costs.
If we were to proceed in the chartering business, soon everyone will want their own
“charter” and how will ICANN be able to justifiably say no. I think that the
Internet is still in its infancy. Maybe chartering is the next step once the
Internet develops some more (i.e., what is the universe of “museums” names as compared
to the universe of “.com”/”.org”/”.XYZ”.
I would monitor this very closely in terms
of the costs and the benefits of such an action. Rather than looking at chartering
right now, ICANN should focus on effectively and successfully releasing and administering
a SINGLE TLD to be “chartered or otherwise” by each local ccTLD.
Do a Cost Benefit
analysis; do an external and internal scanning; and then decide.”
Questions for
public comment:
Q58: How many new TLDs of each type should be included in the initial
introduction?
Only ONE TLD overall.
(Please see Response to Q16, Q39 and Q53).
Q59:
Which types of TLDs will best serve the DNS?
Those which are user-friendly, have
broad global appeal (i.e., are based on tautology and/or symbolic meaning – e.g.,
“.com” ; “.14K”; “.AAA”; “.BIO”; “.$$$”; “.XXI”; “.101”. (Please see Response to
Q57 above, inclusive of other Referenced Responses in Q57).
Q60: Are there any
types of TLDs that ICANN should not consider?
Yes. ICANN should not consider variations
of any existing gTLDs, ccTLDs, “currently speculative ‘webtlds’” and/or “regulatory-type
TLDs (e.g., .REG).”
Please see Response to Q24 and Q40 Response through Q46 Response,
inclusive.
Q61: Which types, if any, are essential to the successful testing period?
Same
response as in Q59 Response:
“Those which are user-friendly, have broad global
appeal (i.e., are based on tautology and/or symbolic meaning – e.g., “.com” ; “.14K”;
“.AAA”; “.BIO”; “.$$$”; “.XXI”; “.101”. (Please see Response to Q57 above, inclusive
of other Referenced Responses in Q57).”
C. In the case of a restricted TLD, the
mechanisms proposed to make the restrictions effective
The proposed mechanisms
to make the restriction effective should include, but not be limited to:
Legal: through contracts/Memoranda of Understanding;
Financial & Performance-base:
centralized financial; billing; invoicing mechanisms centrally based at ICANN;
Proprietary: Software/hardware and the information produced shall remain the property
of ICANN, in those instances where the information is not owned by the end-user/registrant;
and,
Organizational/Motivational: Providing reward power; technical assistance
and “official” recognition.
PLEASE see Response to Q36 through Q39 for additional
information.
D. Requirements for domain name registrants in the Proposed TLD
Please
see Response Q7—Second Paragraph— and Response to Q39.
Sample excerpt to from Q7
Response:
The new gTLD and the organizations sponsoring the gTLD must gain the
public trust and must be able to implement and manage the gTLD in a way that
eases the fear, mistrust and knowledge-deficit of the Internet and technology.
The new gTLD should help people feel good about using it; it should be “trendy” as
people’s behavior would determine if not just the name (e.g., .WEB) but also the
image and the meaning this gTLD has is worth attaching to something they value or
to access and value something that is attached to the gTLD. (Remember when
the Pentium chip first came out an people thought of the Pentium chip as something
which would be prone to error and which may have messed-up their checking accounts
balances based on the revelation that the chip had a “flaw”).
If people think
that the new gTLD may have a flaw(s) and/or that this is just a reversible experiment
then the credibility for the new gTLD may be compromised from the beginning.
I don’t have a crystal ball in front of me to say that .WEB will be an immediate
success either (if not, think about the New Coke vs. Classic Coke—although the .WEB
not gaining the acceptance is unlikely, given that domains are not rated by “tastebuds”,
rather than by their utility, meaning and relevance). I’ll close this question
by telling my first experience with domains: When I first heard of .com, .org, .gov
and .edu , I did not question much their meaning—they clicked & made sense to me—one
for businesses (although I was not sure what the “com” stood for; one for government
(I thought even State); one for non-profits; and one for schools). That registered
very quick in my mind and I adopted this new thing without much fuss. However,
a gTLD of .WEB, which may allow everyone and their uncle to register it (e.g., the
.coms/.orgs/.nets), may not be as easily “relied-upon”, and people may by default
look at .com first, then to .WEB.
Do a Cost Benefit analysis; do an external and
internal scanning; and then decide.
E. Purpose, mission, justification for the
TLD
1. What (if anything) will distinguish the proposed TLD from existing or other
proposed TLDs?
Ease-of use; local-relevance; public-choice; mass appeal; continued
and evolving use of the Internet and Internet-based commerce, communications and
growth.
2. What market will be served or targeted?
The retail market ; the financial
markets; the educational community; main street; and the “digitally disadvantaged”—through
each individual ccTLD, and globally through the limited-use/unrestricted gTLD
for trademarks.
3. How would introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the
DNS?
Do a marketing campaign no smaller than a Hollywood premiere grand opening;
offer a strategic alliance to popular/recognized brands and images/names: e.g., WhoWantsToBeaMillionaire.XYZ;
DowJones.ZYZ; e-bay.XYZ; CocaCola.XyZ; NFL.XYZ; UnitedWay.XYZ; RedCross.XYZ; IMF.Xyz;
Google.Xyz; Fifa.XYZ; Lakers.xyz; RollingStontes.XYZ; etc.
4. For unrestricted
TLDs: What will be the value to the broader Internet community? Will the TLD seek
to provide competition with existing TLD registries?
The new TLD should be viewed
as a “smart” TLD and as a “new and improved” “.com/.org/.net”. The new TLD
should have mass appeal and desirability, either intrinsic through its “meaning”
or harvested through “marketing” and “brand recognition/creation efforts.”
The new TLD should have a social conscience and should symbolize a bridge between
the well off and the poor/digitally-disadvantaged. The TLD should color the
Image of the Internet community as one of not just techies/nerds but of socially
and human needs oriented bunch.
The new TLD should be viewed as the conscience
of the Internet. The new TLD should make the Internet community feel good about
technology and should make those not yet accessing the Internet wanting to get onboard.
The new TLD and its accompanying rollout campaign should serve to ease the end-users
fears and should help improve local economic development.
If all these things
are the driving vision for the new TLD, then the new TLD shall not only provide competition
to the existing TLDs but will also redefine the way the Internet is perceived and
used.
5. For restricted TLDs: What will be the value to the specific community
or market to be served?
Local control; public-choice; local-relevance; local-economic
development; broad-local support base by local businesses, small businesses and local
governments. The restricted TLD at the ccTLD level will have direct and indirect
benefits in an urban/suburban context. It will have a green effect in that
the Internet will allow people to avoid unnecessary local trips; in these post-modern
times the Internet will help local communities developed shared identity and participation;
will allow local government to be otherwise more inclusive and democratically accessible
through this new technology and will allow for an overall improvements of the quality
of life of kids and their families. I really think that coupled with the local
development and the control on preserving local dollars that many of the public-assistance
families and kids may at last take part and share of a piece of the pie created by
the new economy and the eCommerce.
F. Why should the proposed TLD be included in
the initial introduction of TLDs?
1. What concepts are likely to be proven/disproved
by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD?
Here is a representative list of
Hypothesis (H1) to be tested and the outcomes that may be expected:
Proven: that
Internet structural management, not just causality of indirect forces influences
Internet relevance and growth.
Proven: that the internet is a viable solution to
bring about urban renewal; economic growth; reduced poverty; and increased environmental
benefits based on the “index” of users per representative communities. (A quasi-non-experimental
comparison of two-communities where all things are equal except the degree /index
of Internet use).
Disproved: that the Internet increases the incidence of crime.
Disproved:
that Internet-based transactions are less secure than conventional transactions.
Proved:
that higher familiarity with Internet and locally based resources/information (coupled
with the knowledge of global developments) is positively correlated to higher earnings,
regardless or independent of formal education. (This is a hunch)
Proved: that the
Internet is a viable mobility alternative as opposed to just transit, auto or paratransit.
Proven:
That the Internet is an optimum media to realize and capitalize on the paradigms
of a post-capital economy vis-à-vis the boundless applications of intellectual capital.
Proven:
Than the Internet helps control the global migration crisis in that locals from third-world
countries no longer have a need to illegally migrate to wealthier nation-states in
search of low-paying job since the internet provides the means to, at minimum, modest-paying
jobs (e.g., web page design, etc.) while at the same time allowing to keep a family
together.
2. By what criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD
be evaluated?
The criteria to be evaluated is the “index of use”; the “economic
activity”; the “social activity” proximate indicators and related outcomes; and “improved
Internet administrative effectiveness/efficiency” (e.g., reduced number of trademark
complaints; growth administrative activities , as opposed to tactical/trouble-shooting
activities; participate e-democracy in Internet decisions; increased At Large Membership
base; satisfied Internet users).
3. Are there any reasons, other than the desire
to evaluate the introduction process, for including the TLD in the initial introduction?
I’m
not sure what you mean? – Need additional context/clarification to respond to this
question.
Question for public comment:
Q62: Which other structural factors, if
any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential success of a specific TLD
proposal?
Selected Excerpt: mass appeal of .com and other domains will easily
surpass the 32-bit upper limit predictions (e.g., Ipv5 may not be enough given the
excitement about and the new-comers-en-mass to the Internet); 6) people want to hook-up
as much as they can to the Internet (e.g., portable personal planners, their cars,
their bikes, their cell phones, their TVs, their homes, their classrooms, their employees,
their boardrooms, their billboards, etc. . . . );
Additional structural factors
are for example, but not limited to: technical, organizational, financial, legal,
administrative, business process, functional, core competence, and technological
context specific.
Please see Q1 Response through Q12 Response, inclusive; Q36
Response through Q39 Response, inclusive; Q43 Response; and, Q50 Response.
Also,
include Q59 Response:
“Those which are user-friendly, have broad global appeal
(i.e., are based on tautology and/or symbolic meaning – e.g., “.com” ; “.14K”; “.AAA”;
“.BIO”; “.$$$”; “.XXI”; “.101”. (Please see Response to Q57 above, inclusive of other
Referenced Responses in Q57).”
G. Naming conventions within the TLD (i.e. will
registrants register second-level domain names, or will the TLD be organized into
sub-domains?)
Beyond defining that the ccTLD be the unit of analysis/differentiation
from among all other units (e.g., xxxx.XYZ.us ; xxxx.XYZ.fr; xxxx.XYZ.sv; xxxx.XYZ.mx),
how the ccTLDs choose to parse their given TLD (which shall be the same for all ccTLDs,
except for the ISO –specific ending) has to be left-up to the ccTLDs, provided that
the ccTLDs follow the ICANN prescribed principles/requirements as defined in Memoranda
of Understanding, Contracts and Administrative Directives to be issued by ICANN and
to be executed as mutually agreed between ccTLDs, related umbrella entities (i.e.,
IANA) and ICANN. No gTLDs shall be issued to any ccTLDs, except to those ICANN-designated
registries specializing in registrants meeting famous trademark requirements or to
registrants otherwise fulfilling requirements giving notice of a “trademark-type”
name.
Please responses to Q 36 through Q39, inclusive, which also apply and are
incorporated as part of the response to Question “G” herein.
II. Information about
the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the TLD
[[[Question from Nestor Requeno: Did
you want people to respond to bullets A.1 – A.9 ? – it’s not clear what this information
is here for.]]
A. Company/organization information
1. Company or organization
name
2. Address
3. Business locations/offices
4. Names of officers, directors,
and executives
5. Annual report or similar document
6. Current business operations
7.
Past business operations and experiences
8. Qualifications and experience of financial
and business officers
9. Qualifications and experience of technical officers
Questions
for public comment:
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?
Out of precedence, preference should be given to
already established and successfully/effectively operating companies. However,
since depending on a likely assumption that the new TLD will bring geometrically
increased registration activity, the best-qualified proponents should be selected
to meet the surplus demand. Otherwise, the registration process may encounter
big bottlenecks at the front-end. Although under my proposal all registrations
will be at the ccTLD levels, the registrations of the “restricted” TLDs need not
be confined to locally-bases ccTLDs registries. This should be an open/market-driven
process. However, the dispute resolution process will also be based on the
venue where the Registry operates; where the registrant lives/does business or where
the complainant files the claim. Both registration and ability to access already
registered Domain Names should not have artificial walls or barriers—other than being
designated by the country code (e.g., jondoe.XYZ.sv shall be accessible from any
part of the world and its registration should be allowed from any part of the world
not just by the “.sv” registrants, to the extent that applicable local, international
and jurisdictional laws permit it.
Q64: If a company has significant operational
or policy positions not yet filled, how should ICANN evaluate the level of competence
of officers and employees?
By the Job Bulletins and the “search” methods used by
the organization which should be consistent with generally acceptable business standards.
To the extent possible any relevant historical or performance information shall be
sought and evaluated. If ICANN assesses that the organization is not yet ready
to take-on a project or services of this magnitude and that the public interest may
be at risk, then ICANN may otherwise exercise this criteria to reject an otherwise
eligible company, with the concurrence of legal counsel and actuarial professionals.
Q65:
How should ICANN evaluate the competence of officers and employees?
Request a minimum
experience threshhold of three years in business for the company and five years of
related experience for principal staff/officers. Require proof of formal education,
staff capacity, compensation plans, revenue to liability ratios, cash flow, proof
of bond, independent past performance audits, past financial audits, and overall
assessed risk/potential. That is, have a consistent evaluation criteria for all proponent
companies and objectively rate proposal against those criteria.
Set-up an
interdisciplinary evaluation panel. Stick to deadlines for proposals.
Answer questions formally and informally as established by an open-competitive process.
Enforce content requirement and maximum/minimum number of pages, formatting requirements,
exhibits requested, and additional information requested. Do announce ahead
of time via the Request For Proposal, the interest letter, the bidder’s conference
and any follow-up group conference as to what the evaluation criteria will be/is
and systematically/objectively follow that criteria.
B. Registry business model
1.
Capitalization of registry –
Require it!
2. Sources of capital –
Require
financial and back-up statements!
3. Revenue model (i.e. for-profit or cost-recovery?)
–
To be required!
4. Business plan –
A must! (But not an absolute determinant
– must address basic/minimum RFP requirements; must include contingency, evaluative,
and customer-complaint-resolution procedures).
5. Allocation of registry/registrar
functions
a. How will registration services be provided to registrants (i.e. through
a single registrar, selected registrars, all ICANN-accredited registrars, or some
other model)?
Follow the ICANN-accredited registrar’s models (exclusively and uniformly).
As a condition to becoming a registration service for the ICANN TLDs, require that
registry/ccTLD convert/incorporate the ICNN-model to effect all the new TLD registration
using the ICANN-model, other models to used by the ccTLD/registry can continue to
co-exist but none of the new TLDs shall be registered through any model other than
the ICANN’s-model, for consistency and uniformity as a value-added-service to all
consumers. Prior registry experience shall count (1:1) in evaluating a new
registration service. Stipulations to used the ICANN-model should be clearly
stated in the MOUs/Contract, scope of work and contract administration/enforcement
requirements.
b. Relationship of registry to ICANN-accredited registrars
Registrar
shall become part of the ICANN constituency structure through, both the ccTLD and
the Registrar constituency under the DNSO, plus other applicable constituencies.
6.
Proposed registration fees
$25 for two years per domain, fully-serviced
(parked), with no hidden costs. Economies of scales and projected volumes should
assist ICANN and registries to come-up with a competitive price structure.
Please note that $25 in developing countries may be a week’s salary. Renewals
should be set at $10 per year.
Trademark unrestricted TLD should be at least
$350 per domain registration, regardless of the number of trademarks registered,
given that registrants needs only register once (as opposed to 200 different ones,
unless the registrants want to penetrate its presence a step further into the ccTLDs,
in which case it shall cost the registrar $25 for two-years per domain registration;
and $10 per annual renewal). The higher trademark price will create a buffer
for would be “Cybersquatter” to register trademarks en masse.
Questions for public
comment:
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?
Follow current criteria in
place in the ICANN-model. However, I cannot speak intelligently about this,
other than in general terms, as I’m not informed of all of the ICANN-established
requirements, criteria, and internal processes.
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. Encourage a mix of established for-profits;
non-profits; community-based-organizations; local-municipalities; local-economic-development
offices (e.g., Office of Small Business); and Faith-based Organizations to provide
this services, provided that each of the individual organizations are otherwise qualified
and agree to follow/perform in accordance with all of ICANN’s requirements and stipulations,
including but not limited to contracts / Memoranda of Understanding, evaluation criteria
(program and contractual), administrative directives, competitive practices (as opposed
to monopolistic ones), and quality/customer-centered services.
Q68: What measures
should be in place to protect registrants from the possibility of a registry operator's
business failure?
Require that registries are bonded and/or that they hold a minimum
surety bond in trust, among all the other safeguards required by ICANN. Ensure
that the business is duly licensed and otherwise allow operating within the given
physical jurisdiction. Ensure that business carry minimum liability coverage
of $1 million dollars (or some substantial yet reasonable amount) per incident.
C.
Technical capabilities
[[[ Not clear what kind of input you are requesting here]]]
1.
Physical plant
a. Hardware
b. Software
c. Facility security
2. Data security
and escrow
3. Scalability and load capacity
4. Registry-to-registrar technical
and other support
5. Registrar-to-registrant technical and other support
6.
Billing and collection operations
Question for public comment:
Q69: What should
be the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient stability and interoperability?
Three
years of documented business operations at similar or higher levels. Staff
must be a combination of technical/professional staff, but not all-technical, with
accredited college/university level degrees and documented relevant experience for
a minimum of five years in the area of expertise. One additional year of advanced
education in the field shall count for one year of additional experience. At least
two of the officers/principal staff shall have documented direct-experience in Internet-related
technical matters and/or similar technology.
III. Information about the Policies
and Procedures Applicable to the TLD
A. Unrestricted TLDs
1. Basic TLD policies
(how do they differ from the policies applicable to .com, .net, and .org)?
I see
a large common overlap between the general principles/rules applicable to the .com/.org/.net
and the new unrestricted TLDs (e.g., administrative-internal, public input/participation
in the processes, record keeping, staff development, human resources, etc.).
Where they start to differ is in the area of the differ is in the area of utilizing
a famous trademarks listing database to only make these domain accessible to the
specific ccTLD level. Procedures to maintain the integrity of this process/safe-guard
will required dedicated resources and new administrative set of procedures/training
and staff capacity.
Additionally, professional service support may be needed
and respective procedures to effectively address the specialized service/product
elements (e.g., legal, trademark, advisory, contractual, technical, outreach, communications/public
relations, and administrative procedural requirements).
In order to implement
this feature globally at each ccTLD level, it will require contract/MOU provisions
and follow-up on ccTLD compliance regarding those provisions, ad-hoc Administrative
Directives, and planning, organizing, coordination, directing and budgeting.
Furthermore, a public information office and inter-governmental relations divisions
may be needed to be dedicated to the new TLD(s) as the level of inquiry and inter/intra-governmental
coordination will be exponentially lager. The twist of this is that these service/administrative
units will have to have familiarity (if not keen knowledge) of each local area ccTLD,
thus making these two linguistic and culturally diverse/specific operations.
Representatives at the local ccTLD level to advise ICANN in a fiduciary-like relationship
will also be needed at each of the ccTLD venues/posts/countries.
Another area
of contrast will be the hooking-up and maintenance of systems, around the clock-in-real
time and the troubleshooting/surplus-demand that will most certainly create several
situations where the systems may become bogged down, overtaxed and temporarily inoperative.
Contingency plans and appropriate staff/resource coverage must be managed to do risk
management and damage control, as needed.
2. Policies for selection of, and competition
among, registrars
Please see previous responses on procurement and contracting/MOU
process.
3. Measures for protection of intellectual property rights
As previously
stated.
4. Procedures for start-up phase of TLD
As previously stated.
5. Dispute-resolution
procedures
As previously stated, including added claims of “interested parties”
whose .com/.org/.net domains may have purportedly loss value and the “interest parties”
seek tort and loss damages. Claims will also exist on individuals not being
able to get the name(s) they want because they were previously taken, even in the
context of a “managed and coordinated role out.” Should there not be a “roll-out
strategy and a plan” then the “free-for-all” registration process may naturally evolve
to chaotic levels of complexity.
Energy to bring the system back to normal
operating levels will dramatically increase, and will be exacerbated by the lack
of planning, managed workflow, and implementation methodology. The inability
to respond to these demands within the ICANN administrative structure will cause
the complaints and actions to be filed at the court system, even if these will later
be remanded to the administrative levels (i.e., ICANN).
Directly operating
the ccTLD contracts will require some kind of dedicated/permanent presence at the
ccTLD level to resolve/monitor complaints. A way to avert this is ideally for
ICANN to contract with IANA under a Master Services Agreement and IANA, in turn,
shall administer the contracts and the administrative requirements at the ccTLD level.
Questions
for public comment:
Q70: How should ICANN evaluate the sufficiency of proposed
intellectual property protections?
ICANN should shift the burden of proof on this
requirement onto the ccTLD through IANA. The ccTLDs/IANA should provide ICANN
with satisfactory verification that they have addressed and/or continue to pursue
addressing this issues, to the extent possible.
Q71: What role should ICANN have
in the start-up procedures for new unrestricted TLDs?
Delegate. Delegate. Delegate.
ICANN should have a central coordinating role and an overall leadership role.
ICANN should exercise a role to ultimately review/approve/deny or request revisions
on the proposals/implementation plans by individual registries/ccTLDs/participating
organizations.
B. Sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs
1. Basic TLD policies
2.
Criteria for registration
a. Enforcement procedures and mechanisms
b. Appeal
process from denial of registration
3. Policies for selection of, and competition
among, registrars
4. Measures for protection of intellectual property rights
5.
Procedures for start-up phase of TLD
6. Dispute-resolution procedures
a. Intellectual-property
disputes
b. Charter issues
Question for public comment:
Q72: In what ways
should the application requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ
from those for open TLDs?
Please see above responses – all apply.
C. Allocation
of policymaking responsibilities
1. Is a sponsoring organization proposed to receive
policymaking responsibility for the TLD? Or will policies all be made through the
ICANN process?
All policies should be made by the ICANN process and implemented/monitored
at the local level by the local units (i.e., the ccTLD level) with the general oversight
and compliance monitoring by ICANN.
2. If some policies are to made by the sponsoring
organization, on what subjects?
Sponsoring organizations should only make policy
on internal procedures or jurisdictional imposed requirements, where the powers of
the elected/established government units supersede ICANN’s contractual relationship
with the ccTLD provider. To the extent possible, the ccTLD shall consult and
confer with ICANN on any, and all, of the policy-making activities. The contracts/MOUs
between ICANN and IANA, and between IANA and the local ccTLDs shall stipulate the
circumstances and the limit of the scope of any policymaking that takes place for
the purpose of providing the contracted services. It shall be clearly stipulated
in the contracts/MOUs that ICANN shall be held harmless of any action or damages
arising of the provider’s policies.
3. Relationship of registry operator to policymaking
body (i.e. which organization decides which policies?)
To the extent possible,
the ICANN structure shall be mirrored. ICANN participation and advisory role
shall be institutionalized in all policy-making processes and forums, notwithstanding
the “hold harmless clause exempting ICANN from liability as a result of non-ICANN
chaired policymaking”. All applicable “openness, consensus-based” processed
shall be instituted, as minimally allowed by law and/or shall be exceeded, when there
is no existing requirement for openness and/or the available processes are substandard
in comparison to ICANN’s, as appropriate, to mirror the processes followed by ICANN.
4.
Policymaking procedures (i.e. how would future changes in registration or registrar
policies be made?)
Administrative Directives pursuant to contract/MOUs stipulations
and requirements. Evaluation components shall be made operational through Administrative
Directives and interoffice memoranda, as well.
5. Openness, transparency, and representatives
of policymaking process
a. Selection of policy makers
Democratic, representative
elections and/or ratification by a duly elected/official-body representative of the
targeted constituency.
b. Types of stakeholders represented in the policy-formulation
process
Customers, members, supporters, payers, collaborators, representative staff,
end-users, suppliers, advisory teams, ICANN constituency, local government representatives
as needed/appropriate, and regulators. IT SHALL BE CLEAR THAT ICANN’S RELATIONSHIP
TO THE PROVIDER IS A CONTRACTUAL AND/OR ADVISORY WHEREBY ICANN AND THE PROVIDER EACH
ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AND NEITHER WORKS FOR THE OTHER OR IS THE AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE,
NEITHER CLIENT NOR EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER, OF THE OTHER.
Questions for public comment:
Q73:
Should ICANN require a statement of policy or should a statement of how policies
will be made be sufficient?
Most definitely: This is what I was addressing in Q70
and Q71.
Q74: What level of openness, transparency, and representativeness in policymaking
should ICANN require?
I believe that ICANN’s model is an extremely transparent,
open, and representative model. In my opinion, the current ICANN model is a
best-practice which I have not experienced from any other private/public, much less
a non-profit organization. I would just add that ICANN, IANA and the ccTLDs
increase their ability to communicate in linguistic and culturally effective manners
in all the confines where there are at least thresholds number of Internet users.
If there is no thresholds set up may be a suggested 5% per ccTLD shall be a minimum
thresholds to provide language/culturally specific/effective translations/content
and services. In browsing through some of the ccTLDs I notice that they only
have a name and an address on a static homepage. ICANN can certainly provide
guidelines or suggest about training/technical assistance for IANA/ccTLDs to access,
as needed, to provide open and inclusive participation of the public, similar to
those provided by ICANN.
END OF RESPONSES------------------------------------------------------
V.
Call for Statements of Interest in Proposing a New TLD
In its 18/19 April 2000
statement concerning new TLDs, the Names Council stated:
"To assist the Board
in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN
staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD
registry."
In accordance with that recommendation, the ICANN staff invites expressions
of interest from parties seeking to operate and/or sponsor any new TLD registry.
Expressions of interest should be brief (generally no more than ten pages) but descriptive.
All submissions should include self-identification, brief description of the structure
and purpose of the proposed TLD, and an indication of the likelihood of submitting
a formal application for the proposed TLD.
Although those who submit expressions
of interest will neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged in the formal application
process, as suggested by the Names Council statement the expressions will be used
to assist the formulation of appropriate policies concerning the consideration of
formal applications.
Please send expressions of interest in electronic form to
tld-interest@icann.org. All submissions should be suitable for public posting.
Comments
concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be
sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated 17-June-00
(c) 2000 The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.