Statement by the Policy Oversight
Committee
Answers to the Questions Posed by ICANN re: New Top Level DomainsQ1:
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?
ICANN should coordinate with the
IETF and the IAB to the extent that the introduction of new TLDs may raise technical
or protocol issues.
Q2: What stability concerns are associated with the initial
phases of registration within the TLD?
Assuming that responsible registry entities
are chosen to perform registration functions, there do not appear to be significant
stability concerns associated with the initial phases of registration
Q3: What
can be done to eliminate or reduce these stability concerns?
Q4: Would these stability
concerns be magnified by introducing a large number of TLDs at once?
We believe
that establishing a large number of gTLDs at once increases the possibilities of
errors, because a large number of gTLDs implicates a large number of new DNS servers,
which could lead to greater possibilities of installation and security errors.
Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing the introduction of a significant
new TLD once it goes into operation?
Technically it may be possible, but in practice,
it would be extremely difficult, and might well lead to claims of violation of legal
rights against ICANN, the registries and the registrars.
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?
It may be feasible but, given the extensive debate
that has already taken place on the desirability of introducing new TLDs, it would
be a great mistake.
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?
For a variety of reasons, ICANN should avoid creating property rights
in any new TLDs. Control of the registry of any new TLDs should be held by ICANN
or may be delegated to another not-for-profit organization or organizations. (The
actual technical functions – the hardware and software – may be contracted out to
any reliable operator or, preferably, operators, to insure operational stability.)
The registrar function may then be exercised by any number of competing registrars.
Competition among registrars has already proven its usefulness in lowering the costs
of registering domain names in .com, .net and .org. Payments by registrars to the
registries should be controlled and limited to cost recovery by the registries.
Registrars
should have a role in the specification and control of how the registry is run. Registries
should operate with standardized interfaces and software, available on a royalty-free
basis to all registries alike, to reduce switching costs in cases where for some
reason it is necessary to change registries. Switching procedures should be established
in advance.
Q8: To what extent is the experience gained from introducing gTLDs
in the 1980s applicable to present-day circumstances?
The experience is extremely
useful and relevant – ICANN must not make the same mistakes that were made in the
1980’s.
Q9: To the extent it is applicable, what are the lessons to be learned
from that experience?
The principal lesson is that creating an unregulated monopoly
with freedom to set prices out of all proportion to its costs is a tremendous mistake.
ICANN should avoid this by insuring that no registry has intellectual property rights
in any new domain and that the registries operate on a cost-recovery, not-for-profit
basis. ICANN should also retain sufficient control so that registries that
fail to operate in accordance with their contract (or charter) may be replaced without
disruption of service to Internet users.
Q10: What lessons, if any, can be learned
regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience of the ccTLD registries?
Because
of the national sovereignty issues involved in the operations of the ccTLD registries,
the lessons are not entirely relevant, but it is becoming clear that the availability
of a large number of top level domains has no significant negative impact either
on the functioning of the Internet or on expanding the benefits of the Internet to
its users.
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?
See above, Q10.
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.
Q13: What steps should be
taken to evaluate carefully the initial introduction of TLDs before future introduction
of additional TLDs?
Ideally, six new TLDs should be introduced in a first stage.
Two in a first step, two three months later and two more after another three month
period. After the introduction of the first two, the ICANN Board may review the situation
to determine whether any major technical or other problems have arisen.
After
the deployment of the initial six, the Board should decide on further deployment
of new gTLDs in a scaled manner. If any problems have been encountered, the Board
should establish a timetable for resolving the problems and then moving forward.
ICANN
should now be formulating evaluation criteria for the operation of the new TLDs.
Q14:
Should a fixed time be established for all the evaluations, or should the time allowed
vary depending on the nature of the TLD and other circumstances?
A calender should
be fixed and publicized as soon as possible to avoid political manoeuvering intended
to delay the process unduly.
Q15: Should choices regarding the types of TLDs
included in the initial introduction seek to promote effective evaluation of:
the
feasibilty and utility of different types of new TLDs?
the efficacy of different
procedures for launching new TLDs?
different policies under which the TLDs can
be administered in the longer term?
different operational models for the registry
and registrar functions?
different institutional structures for the formulation
of registration and operation policies within the TLD?
other factors?
At
this time, the single most valuable action that ICANN can take is simply the creation
of new TLDs. There is no need to create elaborate structures to study the issues
raised above, since the experience to be gained from the operation of a few new TLDs
will provide far more valuable information to ICANN and the Internet than any number
of preliminary studies such as those mentioned.
It will, however, undoubtedly
be useful to establish one or more chartered TLDs as a special case to provide information
on the utility of this type of TLD.
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?
The goal should ultimately be unlimited numbers of TLDs.
There is no reason for arbitrary limits except to avoid technical problems. The only
sound proofs of concept required are: 1) avoidance of technical problems and 2) public
acceptance.
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?
A more significant motivation
is the demand for more fully open TLDs. Registrars should compete in the market for
their services.
Q18: Should the desire for diverse vendors of registry services
in open TLDs be an important motivation in adding fully open TLDs?
If this refers
to the desire of some entities for ownership of intellectual property rights in TLDs,
the desire for diverse vendors is irrelevant. If the desire is based on having a
variety of registries to ensure stability, then it is important.
Q19: Would the
introduction of additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion
among Internet users?
The experience of the Internet with ccTLDs answers this
question. The answer is No. Speculation on “confusion” should not be an excuse for
further delay.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account, should one or
more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
See answer to Q13.
Q21:
How many?
See answer to Q13.
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs
be in providing effective competition to .com?
Preregistration in proposed new
TLDs has demonstrated the strong interest of the public in new TLDs. The prompt creation
of new fully open TLDs will provide a better answer to the question of effectiveness
than any amount of speculation now.
Q23: What can be done to maximize the prospect
that new fully open TLDs will be attractive to consumers as alternatives to .com?
ICANN
should establish new TLDs that are, on their face, attractive. There are many useful
proposals available. It is of course, obvious, that a new TLD such as x8z45 would
be unattractive.
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?
This
appears unlikely, because there has been no significant expression of interest in
this proposal. Users clearly prefer having a URL that is as simple as possible.
Q25:
Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal
in the introduction of new TLDs?
This is not an appropriate goal. The DNS was
not created to be a resource-location tool, although some users have attempted to
make it so. There are far better and more effective tools for this purpose.
Q26:
Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this
goal?
See above Q25.
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?
See above Q25
Q28: Is the concept of TLD "charters" helpful in promoting
the appropriate evolution of the DNS?
The concept is helpful. Assuming that there
will eventually be an unlimited number of TLDs, there is no reason a priori to bar
chartered TLDs. This is the best time for an experiment with one or two chartered
TLDs. ICANN must recognize the risk that a charter may become the subject of controversy,
especially in the area of qualification for membership. It may be very difficult
for ICANN to avoid becoming embroiled in these controversies, and it may be necessary
to establish a dispute resolution mechanism simultaneously with creation of a chartered
TLD.
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?
These principles, which
were not proposed to ICANN by the Names Council, are not appropriate criteria
if they are used to limit or exclude open TLDs. Assuming that ICANN will create open
TLDs, the principles would be appropriate in judging applications for chartered TLDs.
Q30:
Do those principles preclude the introduction of any new fully open TLDs?
It
depends on ICANN’s interpretation of them. Please see response to question 29.
Q31:
What types of TLDs should be included in the first group of additional TLDs to best
test the concept of chartered TLDs?
We recommend that the introduction of chartered
gTLDs take place after some initial open gTLDs have been deployed. This would avoid
having to deal with two complex initiatives at the same time. Assuming that ICANN
adopts the proposal set forth in the answer to Q13 (i.e. six new TLDs), we recommend
that two open gTLDs be deployed first, and that at least one of the two next TLDs
be a chartered gTLD.
We recommend that a first chartered gTLD be designated for
a worldwide organisation that would act as a registry. Its name should be clearly
recognisable by speakers of different languages, and the members of the organisation
who will use the sTLDs under that TLD should have high visibility for users. The
organisation should be selected carefully to avoid the difficulties that would arise
if the experiment is not successful.
If no applicant appears that complies with
the above requirements, then ICANN should not accept a chartered gTLD proposal simply
for the sake of having a chartered TLD. It would be better, in such a case, to add
an additional open TLD.
It would also be advisable simultaneously to adopt a
dispute resolution procedure to deal with membership issues in any new chartered
TLD.
Q32: Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined system,
or should proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
Initially, proposals
should be evaluated individually as part of the process of introducing new
TLDs. A pre-defined system will require extended planning which should not delay
the current process.
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?
Stability should be considered as the highest priority, but
the appropriate steps are probably not capable of determination until the procedure
is begun.
Q34: Has the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an
unacceptably low level?
Yes. The inflation of prices paid for domains in the
existing TLDs demonstrates that there is currently an artificially created shortage.
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?
The
first priority is adding new open TLDs. Differentiation, if any, will be determined
by users, and should not be a matter of concern for ICANN.
Q36: Should the formulation
of policies for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In
all cases or only in some?
Policies for limited-purpose TLDs will necessarily
be developed by applicants for such TLDs and will be given initial approval when
ICANN approves the introduction of a TLD. ICANN’s role in reviewing such policies
should be strictly limited to issues relating to the technical stability of the Internet.
After creation of a new limited-purpose TLD, ICANN should avoid becoming involved
in policy issues and should develop a dispute resolution procedure if there is a
question that cannot be resolved within the TLD structure.
Q37: What measures should
be employed to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is appropriately
representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
None. Following ICANN’s recognition
of a sponsoring organization and creation of a TLD, the issue of representation should
be an internal matter for the organization, subject only to review, if necessary,
by a dispute resolution procedure.
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?
The same
principles as in the answer to Q37 should apply, namely, that ICANN should not attempt
to establish any such measures.
Q39: How should global policy requirements (adherence
to a TLD's charter, requirements of representativeness, interoperability requirements,
etc.) be enforced?
Please see answer to Q29.
Q40: Are there any types of new
TLDs that should not be included in the initial introduction? If any types should
be excluded, why?
Please see answer to Q56, i.e., no political entities.
Q41:
Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights
that warrant additional protections?
No. The UDRP has proven to be effective
as a supplement to enforcement of rights under national law.
Q42: Should the protections
afforded intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending
on the type of TLD?
No
Q43: Is the availability of the UDRP and court proceedings
as remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights an appropriate element of
protection of intellectual-property rights that should apply to all new TLDs? Are
there any other protections that should be made available in all new TLDs, regardless
of their type?
Yes, to the first question. No, to the second.
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?
No
Q45: What mechanisms
for start up of a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons receive a
fair chance to obtain registrations?
In order to receive approval of a new TLD,
the sponsoring registry or registries should establish a mechanism for ensuring fair
registration opportunities. These mechanisms should be the responsibility of each
new TLD and should be reviewed by ICANN only to the extent that the mechanism must
meet reasonable minimum standards for effectiveness. Disputes should be referred
to a dispute resolution procedure.
Q46: Is exclusion of names appearing on a globally
famous trademark list a workable method of protecting such marks from infringement
at the present time? Would an exclusion mechanism be approprate in the future?
The
answer to both questions, at this time, is No. This should not be treated as a responsibility
of ICANN. ICANN may, at some future date, respond to developments in national
and international law, if, for example, a trademark list is developed that is internationally
recognized.
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?
There
is certainly no reason for delaying introduction at this time. The UDRP has demonstrated
its effectiveness. The evaluation is on-going, and ICANN should from time to time
consider a response to proposals made by such organizations as WIPO or other
internationally recognized authorities in this area.
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?
No. There is no reason
for delay.
Q49: Does the schedule allow sufficient time for formulation of proposals?
Yes.
Q50:
Does the schedule allow sufficient time for public comment?
Yes.
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?
They should
be posted as received.
Q52: Should the formal applications be posted in full for
public comment? If not, which parts of the applications should remain private?
They
should be posted in full.
Q53: Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or
numerous possibilities?
Following the initial rollout, there should be no restrictions
on proposals.
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?
For the first six open gTLDs, it may
be helpful, to ensure an expeditious rollout, for ICANN to select the TLDs. Thereafter,
the applicant registries should propose their labels. For chartered gTLDs, a consultative
process appears to be preferable.
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?
Three letter codes should be the minimum, which
will avoid such conflicts.
Q56: Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD
labels that are established (for example, a prohibition of country names)?
The
names of countries, states, provinces, counties, cities and any other political entities
should be reserved for those entities, and the three letter ISO codes for countries
should also be reserved.
Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting between
potential TLD labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
When
the IETF concludes its study of non-Roman letter designations for URLs, and opens
up the possibility of unique identifiers in non-Roman letters, the choice of language
and characters for TLDs should be similarly opened, with no favoring of any letter
or language.
Q58: How many new TLDs of each type should be included in the initial
introduction?
See answer to Q13. We recommend:
First deployment: Two open
TLDs.
Second deployment (three months later): Either one open TLD and a chartered
TLD or two chartered TLDs
Third deployment (three months later): An open TLD and
a chartered TLD or two open TLDs, so that there will be a total of six TLDs, not
more than two of which are chartered.
Q59: Which types of TLDs will best serve
the DNS?
The only answer to this question will come from the public’s use of
TLDs over a period of years.
Q60: Are there any types of TLDs that ICANN should
not consider?
ICANN should consider all applications and made its judgments on
the merits of each.
Q61: Which types, if any, are essential to the successful testing
period?
The testing period should include both open and chartered TLDs.
Q62:
Which other structural factors, if any, should ICANN consider in determining the
potential success of a specific TLD proposal?
ICANN should not be concerned with
determining the potential success of any proposal other than those that are clearly
unreasonable, e.g. a proposal for a long string of random letters and numbers.
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?
As stated above in answer to Q9, ICANN should accept proposals for open
TLDs only from entities organized not-for-profit and operating on a cost recovery
basis, and should reject any proposal from a company formed “for the purpose
of “operating or sponsoring a new TLD” that claims intellectual property rights in
connection with a TLD.
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?
Based on relevant experience in connection with the Internet.
Q65:
How should ICANN evaluate the competence of officers and employees?
See answer
to Q64.
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?
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?
It is essential that registries of open TLDs
operate on a business model that is not-for-profit and cost recovery. Beyond this
requirement, diversity would be likely be helpful.
Q68: What measures should be
in place to protect registrants from the possibility of a registry operator's business
failure?
ICANN should require:
1. Standardisation of software and interfaces.
2.
Daily data escrow with an agency monitored by ICANN.
3. A recovery plan through
which any registry may asume the operation of another one within 24 hours.
Q69:
What should be the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient stability
and interoperability?
Technical requirements should be established and reviewed
by competent technical authorities, such as the IETF.
Q70: How should ICANN evaluate
the sufficiency of proposed intellectual property protections?
ICANN should only
require that each new registry (as well as all registrars) adopt the UDRP.
Q71:
What role should ICANN have in the start-up procedures for new unrestricted TLDs?
A
minimal role, limited to monitoring compliance with any contracts entered into by
ICANN and the new registries.
Q72: In what ways should the application requirements
for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ from those for open TLDs?
Application
requirements for chartered TLDs initially may require significantly more information
about the proposed label, the potential audience to be served, measures for enforcement
of charter requirements, etc. Ultimately, when unlimited TLDs, including chartered
TLDs, are available, such requirements may no longer be necessary.
Q73: Should
ICANN require a statement of policy or should a statement of how policies will be
made be sufficient?
For the first open TLDs, a statement of how policies will
be made should be sufficient. For the initial chartered TLDs, a more detailed statement
may be required.
Q74: What level of openness, transparency, and representativeness
in policymaking should ICANN require?
Initially, the levels of opennness, transparency
and representativeness will be important and ICANN will be required to make judgments
based on the applications received. After the rollout of the first TLDs, the levels
will no longer be relevant, because ICANN should not be in the position of making
judgments.