Comment: Introduction of
New Top-level DomainsThe persons listed below discussed the ICANN document "Introduction
of
New Top-level Domains" for wholesome development of the Internet. The
results
of those discussions are summarized below.
Names of Discussion Group Members in
alphabetical order
Hiro HOTTA (NTT; International Liaison Working Group, JPNIC)
Tsugizo
KUBO (Domain Name Working Group, JPNIC)
Naomasa MARUYAMA (International Liaison
Working Group, JPNIC)
Shuichi Tashiro (Strategy Working Group, JPNIC)
Atsuo
TORII (Hitachi Techno-Information Services, Ltd.)
Toshi TSUBO, (Domain Name Working
Group, JPNIC)
1. Overall comment
(1) Period for seeking public comments on the
document
After the document was posted by ICANN on June 13, we took the
following
steps before finally submitting our comment on July 10.
Step 1 Commission a specialized
translation company to translate the
document into
Japanese.
Step 2 Discuss the Japanese translation of the document, referring to
the English original.
Step 3 Summarize the discussion results
and draft a comment in Japanese.
Step 4 Commission a specialized translation company
to translate the
comment into English.
Step 5 Check
the translated comment and make corrections to precisely
communicate the intentions of the discussion group.
For people whose mother tongue
is not English, the four-week period
given by ICANN is too short to follow the
above procedure and make
thorough discussions. We propose that the period for
soliciting public
comments be extended to at least 8 weeks so that Internet users
throughout
the world can participate in the discussions.
(2) Discussion process
The document
posted by ICANN this time covers an extremely wide range
of issues, many of which
have been discussed and commented on by IAHC,
DNSO Working Group and others. We
should make effective use of the
store of public comments contributed in the past.
2.
Answers to the questions
Q1 through Q16 should be examined on the basis of technical
knowledge
and past experience, so we will leave these questions (except for Q6)
to
experts. The following are our comments on Q6 and Q17 through Q74.
[Q6] When
there is a possibility of discontinuing a newly introduced
TLD after its evaluation, it is necessary to clearly announce the
period of its limited use or allow the TLD to be introduced only in a
closed society. Reason: Domain name registrants can be notified
of
the elimination of the TLD, but it is practically impossible
to notify
general net users, who access the Internet using
domain names
registered within the TLD, that these domain
names are no longer
usable.
[Q17] Yes. The registry provides
a service to registrars, so its
service will in the end be
reflected on the service general users
receive. Accordingly,
the registry service should also be made
competitive.
[Q18]
Yes. As long as the stability of the DNS is maintained, there
should be pro bono, commercial and many other diversified registries
so that general net users can enjoy services with various
possibilities.
[Q19] Yes. Identical second-level domain names existing in
more than
one undifferentiated TLDs, whether owned by the
same registrant or
different registrants, are very likely
to cause inter-TLD confusion
among general net users. Besides,
some of us have an opinion that
this kind of confusion will
not occur if the Internet develops a
culture in which users
consider a string suffixed with a TLD as a
"domain name".
For example, the string "amazon.com" is well-known as
such
(with .com), so it could be differentiated from "amazon.biz"
without much confusion.
[Q20] Yes. The present TLDs including .com have only a
limited name
space, bringing about trademark-related confusion
in the world outside
the Internet. Here we have to clarify
our position, that is, we think
TLD which is unrestricted
with definition or semantic meaning but no
enforcement is
in fact included in "fully-open TLDs." We hope this
position
accords with the definition of "fully-open TLDs" in the
report. (Some of us take "fully open " TLDs means "unrestricted TLDs"
undifferentiated from .com. They consider introducing such TLDs will
in effect repeat the problems of name space and cyber-squatters.)
[Q21] 3 to 5. The addition of 3 to 5 fully-open TLDs seems appropriate
for preventing initial confusion among consumers. Also, having too
many registries might impair the wholesome development of the
registries themselves. (Those who take "fully open TLDs" as
"unrestricted TLDs" undifferentiated from .com are opposed to
introducing new fully open TLDs.)
[Q22] The .com domain has already
gained full recognition in the
commercial market. Introducing
new TLDs described in our answer to Q23
would effectively
generate competition with .com.
[Q23] We cannot come up with specific strings.
We think a fully-open
TLD should be an easy-to-pronounce
part of a name, easy to recognize,
or made of a string with
a good meaning with special-purpose. We
believe that introducing
numbers of differentiated special purpose
TLDs, rather than
5-6 .com-equivalent undifferentiated TLDs would be
attractive
to consumers by enhancing utility of the DNS, expanding
domain spaces and thus in effect increasing competition among
registries.
[Q24] No. If single-character .com domains were made available, 3rd-level
domain names identical to those on the current 2nd-level
would
appear to cause similar confusion. In other words,
this simply causes
the same problem on a different level.
Furthermore, many conflicts may
occur between registrants
who have the same string on the 2nd-level and
3rd-level.
[Q25]
Yes. Chartered TLDs would be useful provided a qualification
check system is guaranteed.
[Q26] Yes. The introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated
TLDs
would run counter to the goal of "enhancing the utility
of the
DNS". On the other hand, these TLDs are helpful to
the goal of
"enhancing competition for registration services".
[Q27]
We believe introducing numbers of chartered TLDs/differentiated
special-purpose TLDs will accommodate the goal of enhancing
registry-level competition with the goal of enhancing the utility
of the DNS.
[Q28] Yes. Chartered TLDs would be useful provided
a qualification
check system is guaranteed.
[Q29] The answer
is yes for chartered TLDs.
[Q30] No. Fully-open TLDs are useful for other purposes
(e.g.,
enhancing competition for registration services).
(Those among us
who take "fully open TLDs" means "unrestricted/undifferentiated
TLDs" consider that those principles would preclude the
introduction of any new fully open TLDs.)
[Q31] Some of
us have the following view. For commercial-purpose
chartered
TLDs, TLDs for specialized goods or services (as
derivatives
of .com) and for noncommercial-purpose chartered TLDs
those
for specialized affinity groups or protests (as derivatives
of .org).
[Q32] If ICANN decides to allow "chartered TLDs by type of business",
they might be pre-defined. However, the creativity of registry
applicants should be highly respected.
[Q33] In the "product and
service" area, adopting a certain guideline e.g.
the classifications
of the "Nice" Agreement could be recommended.
[Q34] Yes.
[Q35] Increasing unrestricted
TLDs would simply lead to greater
confusion. The addition
of limited-purpose TLDs is preferable.
[Q36-Q39] Introducing the concept of a sponsor
is one possible
solution. However, the definition, responsibility
and authority of the
sponsor and its relation with the registry
are not very clear. We wish
to discuss this issue after these
factors are defined clearly. In any
case, measures should
be taken in full consideration of the concerns
expressed
in Q37 through 39.
[Q40] It is necessary to exclude country names, abbreviated
country
names (e.g., jpn, usa) and country names written
in major languages of
the world.
[Q41] Yes.
[Q42] The
basic protection mechanism (procedure) should not vary with
the types of TLDs. However, as stated in the Business Constituency
Report, the panel's judgement on individual problems may differ with
TLDs if they fulfill a classification role.
[Q43]
(1st question)
Yes. The UDRP and court proceedings should be
applicable to
all new TLDs.
(2nd question) There are some disputes (e.g., concerning International
Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances) not covered
under the present UDRP, and recommendations are made to resolve such
disputes. Consideration should be given to these recommendations when
providing protection in new gTLDs. We support UDRP expansion
described in the Business Constituency report to include protection
of famous trademarks by gTLD.
[Q44] We think protection
should extend to the names of international
organizations
and other globally-known names for public interest.
But there
should be no such difficulties as deserve special address
for those without intellectual properties on the name for domain
name application, because at least in noncommercial chartered TLDs
intellectual property owners are not in stronger position.
[Q45]
Full publicity and fair reception of applications for
registrations
are indispensable. To ensure publicity, the ICANN Web
site
should carry a list of new gTLDs and explain their registration
requirements. To ensure fair acceptance, a certain period should be
designated in which all applications sent at different times are
treated simultaneously so that machine problems in certain regions
can
be taken care of.
[Q46] At the present time, considering
the effort required to compile
and maintain such a list,
we think it more advisable to adopt the
method proposed
by the Business Constituency report. However, when
a list
of globally-famous trademarks is compiled in future (such a
list can be created when many famous trademarks are successfully
protected under the UDRP) and the range of famous trademark
protection is defined clearly in each TLD, a system could be
created to exclude names appearing in the list in advance.
[Q47] To evaluate
the effectiveness of the present UDRP, ICANN should
collect
information and disclose statistics of disputes decided under
the UDRP: how many of them have been forwarded to court proceedings
after the panel decision, and how many court decisions made so far
turned out to be the same with decisions made according to the UDRP.
New TLDs should be introduced only after enough data becomes available.
Also, new TLDs should be introduced after protective measures for
well-known trademarks have been incorporated in the UDRP. It may take
at least six months to take such measures. (Let us note that some of
us have an opinion that 2-3 months is enough.)
[Q48] Yes.
A waiting period of about six months is necessary.
[Q49] No. The suggested schedule
starting from August 1, 2000 should
be delayed by six months.
[Q50]
No. As stated earlier, the schedule is too tight for people
whose native language is not English.
[Q51] To ensure fairness, all proposals should
be posted for comment
simultaneously. This is necessary to
apply the same evaluation
criteria to all proposals and prevent
giving advantage to proposals
submitted later.
[Q52] In
Chapter IV, only the following sections related to gTLDs
should be publicized:
I. Information about the proposed TLD
III. Information
about the policies and procedures applicable to the TLD
[Q53] Numerous possibilities
should be chosen.
[Q54] TLD labels should be proposed by the applicants for new
TLD registries.
[Q55] A TLD code should consist of three or more characters.
[Q56]
Yes. At least, use of country names, three-letter country name
codes and country names written in major languages of the world should
be prohibited. Use of both formal and abbreviated names of
international organizations should also be prohibited.
[Q57] Consideration
should be given to the major languages of the world.
[Q58] The numbers of new TLDs
of each type to be included are as follows:
- Unrestricted:
zero
- Unrestricted with definition or semantic meaning,
but no
enforcement: 2 to 3
- Restricted to a particular class of registrants or particular
uses: 2 to 3
Qualification
check is not necessary for the last two types of TLDs at
the time of registration.
Instead, the UDRP should be applied
semantically.
[Q59] Last two types of TLD
[Q60]
Unrestricted TLD
[Q61] Last two types of TLD
[Q62] We have no idea.
[Q63] Registry
applicants should be requested to write items similar
to those specified for registrar
applications. ICANN can determine the
competence of each applicant based upon
this information.
[Q64-Q67] We have no idea.
[Q68] Necessary measures should
include "data escrow" and "documents
for transferring the registry business to
another company".
[Q69] All registries should fully comply with relevant RFCs in
technical
areas.
[Q70] Unrestricted chartered TLDs should be implemented in accordance
with
the registrar-registry model. All registrars should adopt the UDRP.
[Q71] ICANN
should guarantee the openness and transparency of
information including but not
limited to for unrestricted chartered
TLDs.
[Q72] To require to have a clear
charter-enforcement policy, whether
before registration or after registration,
is important.
[Q73 and Q74] ICANN should require a statement of policy.