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?
A1: The existing
standardisation documents of the IETF have to be examined and possibly new solution
have to be discussed. Relevant standardisation activities (registry-registrar protocols)
have to be taken into consideration.
The IAB should be requested to comment on
the proposals for new TLDs. An open discussion between ICANN, IETF (IAB), W3C, ETSI
is fundamentally important for a transparent decision making process watched by the
internet-community.Q2: What stability concerns are associated with the initial
phases of registration within the TLD?
A2: The start-up process will initiate
a run on the new TLDs. A sufficient bandwidth between registries and registrars is
very important in order to achieve a fair treatment. The number of registrars may
be a bottleneck.
Q3: What can be done to eliminate or reduce these stability concerns?
A3:
The number of registrars must be sufficient. The technical equipment of the registrars
must endure that a smooth start up of a new TLD will take place.
A sun rising
period would be possible where all registering customers should be treated equal.
The.technical requirements can be solved by using a Proxy-Server concept. Within
the sun rising period it will also be possible that UDRP conflicts can be filtered
before they go into operation..
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified
by introducing a large number of TLDs at once?
A4: No, if the process is planed
and realised in a public and common way the number of new TLDs will not magnify the
stability.
Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing the introduction of a
significant new TLD once it goes into operation?
A5: There should not be any new
TLDs that will be discarded. It is technical possible but not wishful after it is
operational. Due to an disconnection of TLD, the economical interest of registrants
are in danger.
Due to the loss of faith in the whole system, it would be possible,
but not advisable. The considerations for the introduction of new TLDs should be
aware of the fact that the TLD will not be reversed.
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?
A6: It is feasible, but perhaps there wont be any
registrants. It is off course better than disconnecting the operational TLD. The
reasons for disconnecting a new TLD have to be well defined. There might be some
registries who will do the job although the new TLD might be disconnected, and there
even might be registrants for new TLD, but perhaps there will not be the broad interest
of the community because it is a trial, so the trial might not be a real trial.
No,
There should not be commercial interests by the registrars - see Q5.
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?
A7: The sponsor
should demonstrate a brought interest in the new TLDs, (what you see is what you
get). The characteristics should be timeless, neutral and global, technical und economical
strength to support the functionality of the operation of a TLD.
Q8: To what extent
is the experience gained from introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to present-day
circumstances?
A8: There should be no monopolistic solution. The DNS should be
equal for everybody (perhaps not only English).
Q9: To the extent it is applicable,
what are the lessons to be learned from that experience?
A9: The process should
be based on a democratic and self regulating basis. It should be globally available
and non-monopolistic. It should be political and financial independent
Q10: What
lessons, if any, can be learned regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience
of the ccTLD registries?
A10: The abuse of TLDs should be prevented. The new TLDs
should have a defined range of use, differences in usage with regard to second and
third level domains and overall treatment criteria's.
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?
A12: Due to the experiences
one will make with the launch of a limited number of new top-level-domain, the suggestions
of the NC should be recommended
Q13: What steps should be taken to evaluate carefully
the initial introduction of TLDs before future introduction of additional TLDs?
A13:
All problems occurred by the initial introduction should be evaluated. This could
be done my observing e.g.:
- Availability of the servers
- Administrative
availability
- Meantime for a registration
- Number of UDRP Processes
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?
A14: The period
should be the same for all TLDs, in order to keep in time when introducing new TLDs.
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?
A15: No other facts could be
determined at this moment.
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?
A16: The initial phase should be limited to a certain number of
new TLDs. With a particular goal for, or limited on.
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?
A17: There should not be any new fully open TLDs just because for competitive
reasons. New TLDs should only be based on economical and internet-relevant reasons.
Competition is not the reason for adding fully open TLDs.
Q18: Should the desire
for diverse vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important motivation
in adding fully open TLDs?
A18: There should not be any new fully open TLD only
to rise the competition between registrars.
Q19: Would the introduction of additional
undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among Internet users?
A19:
Yes.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account, should one or more fully
open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
A20: Yes, in order to examine
the circumstances of adding a fully open TLD to the DNS system.
Q21: How many?
A21:
At least one but not more than 2.
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs
be in providing effective competition to .com?
A22: In a long term view at least
one fully open TLD will be an effective competition to .com due to the new name space.
Q23:
What can be done to maximize the prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive
to consumers as alternatives to .com?
A23: If it is introduced as full open, it
should have no relevant disadvantage compared to .com.
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?
A24: No, this would result in confused costumers and
would result in no improvements of competition to .com.
Q25: Is increasing the
utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the introduction
of new TLDs?
A25: The DNS has an special standing within the internet and is therefore
a suitable and powerful tool to do so.
Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted,
undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?
A26: Yes, because in an unrestricted
undifferentiated system there is no resource-location possible. A second undifferentiated
TLD confuses the costumer even more than .com already does.
Q28: Is the concept
of TLD "charters" helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the DNS?
A28:
Yes, because of chartered TLDs the evolution of the DNS to a resource-location tool
would be a possible way.
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?
A29:
Yes, the WG-C principles are suitable criteria's, whereas the third principle does
not exclude the introduction of new unrestricted undifferentiated TLDs.
Q30: Do
those principles preclude the introduction of any new fully open TLDs?
A30: No,
the principles wont influence the introduction of new fully open TLDs, whereas depending
on the interpretation of the third principle of WG-Cs report an introduction of new
fully open TLDs can be restricted on as certain manner.
Q31: What types of TLDs
should be included in the first group of additional TLDs to best test the concept
of chartered TLDs?
A31: The first group of additional TLDs should include some
kind of restricted non-commercial use TLDs, like .museum, .edu, because the rather
restricted number of costumers within such an TLD will not overload the system and
is therefore a good possibility to verify the introduction of such a chartered TLD.
Also the number of UDRP acts will be minimized due to the non-commercial background
of the registrants.
Q32: Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined
system, or should proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
A32: In order
not to restrict the evolution of the DNS, it is suitable that proposals should be
evaluated on an individual basis.
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?
A33: There should be framework which ensures the
stability of the DNS but also enables the further evolution of the system.
Q34:
Has the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low
level?
A34: The amount of useful DNS has reached a low, but not critical level.
The problem may be solved by the introduction of chartered TLDs or by suitable second
level domains.
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?
A35: Not differentiated TLDs will not solve this problem because
a) Users already registered in .com will register in .com2 too b) If two registrations
are not permitted there will be ibm.com2 which diverse from ibm.com which is probably
not in the interest (UDRP) of ibm.com.
Q36: Should the formulation of policies
for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In all cases or
only in some?
A36: If the sponsoring organizations have the ICANN approved ability
of running an registry and there are no conflicts of interest the delegation should
take place. In other cases the sponsoring should be done by a third party organization
(e.g. ICANN).
Q37: What measures should be employed to encourage or require that
a sponsoring organization is appropriately representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
A37:
Depending on the nature of the TLD a non-profit sponsoring organization should be
representative for their TLD in order to achieve a fair treatment and representation
of stakeholders interests.
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?
A38: The sponsoring organization
have to ensure the broad support of the internet community.
Q40: Are there
any types of new TLDs that should not be included in the initial introduction? If
any types should be excluded, why?
A40: No types of new TLDs should be excluded
in the initial introduction because the variety of TLDs provide the possibility of
verification of processes.
Q41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional
risks to intellectual property rights that warrant additional protections?
A41:
The start up poses additional risks because the number of UDRP acts will rise to
an unacceptable amount due to major interest in new TLDs.
Yes, due to the introduction
of new TLDs it is obvious that the intellectual property rights have to be additional
protected, because the registration of well know Domain Names /Trademarks within
the new TLD will stress the UDRP process, or other means for solving domain name
conflicts.
Q42: Should the protections afforded intellectual property in the start-up
phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type of TLD?
A42: There should be an
overall mechanism for all types of conflicts independent of the type of TLD.
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?
A43: The existing
mechanisms are appropriate elements to ensure intellectual-property rights.
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?
A44: At the
moment there are no known parties which might need further procedures.
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?
A45: The start up of a new TLD
should happen in multiple stages. In the initial phase (1 month) the registrants
will have the opportunity of registering in a new TLD. In the first phase conflicts
of interest can already be identified and directed to an UDRP process. After the
first buffering/examining phase the new domain-names TLD will be operational (phase
2) in the new TLD. This process ensures a smooth introduction of new TLDs and gives
all registrants the same opportunity and rights. Trademark Owner see Q46.
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?
A46: The usage of Trademark lists can
be a suitable method of protecting such well-know-names, but the usage has to be
decided from case to case depending on the type of TLD.
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?
A47: Yes, the UDRP
has a fundamental tool to ensure the proper functionality of the introduction of
new TLDs. The proposed timescale for evaluation of the UDRP process is appropriate.
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?
A48: An extension
of the UDRP process seems not to be a suitable method to cover the conflict that
might areas at the transfer of domain names. Further would the implementation of
a revision to the UDRP result in a postponement of the introduction of new TLDs which
is not in the interest of the internet-community.
Q49: Does the schedule allow
sufficient time for formulation of proposals?
A49: Yes.
Q50: Does the schedule
allow sufficient time for public comment?
A50: No. - comment see Q51.
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?
A51: For reasons
of equal treatment the proposals should be posted simultaneously. Therefore the deadline
for proposals should be advanced to 17th Sept. 2000, in order to get sufficient time
for public comments.
Q52: Should the formal applications be posted in full for
public comment? If not, which parts of the applications should remain private?
A52:
Because of the overall public interest in new TLDs there should be no private information.
Q53:
Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or numerous possibilities?
A53:
In order to achieve a better discussion, on which proposals should be taken, there
should not be any numerous proposed TLDs.
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?
A54: The
first proposal for a new TLD label should be made by the applicants, but the final
decision should be done by the responsible partner (ICANN, Names Council), whereas
a consultation between an applicant and responsible party can be done if necessary.
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?
A55: New
TLDs should not be shorter than three characters and not longer than 10 characters,
in order to distinguish ccTLDs and gTLDs whereas it is most important that the new
TLDs are meaningful and as short as possible. The ISO 3166-1 codes should not be
the ultimate reference in order to evaluate the validity in future.
Q56: Should
there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels that are established (for example,
a prohibition of country names)?
A56: The initial phase should not include any
individual names. If such names should be introduced in future needs further discussion.
Q57:
What should be the criteria for selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English
language TLD labels be favored?
A57: The criteria for selecting the label of a
new TLD can be examined by a broad support of the internet-community of a potential
TLD, expressed while the public comment phase when proposals are posted to the public.
The final decision should be done by the ICANN.
No, non-english language TLDs
should not be in favour if meaningful and helpful.
Q58: How many new TLDs of each
type should be included in the initial introduction?
A58: max. 2 fully open TLD
max.
3 unrestricted with definition or semantic meaning TLDs
max. 5 chartered TLDs
Q59:
Which types of TLDs will best serve the DNS?
A59: The most valuable TLDs will
be chartered TLDs, because they enable a better assignment of domain names and content.
Q60:
Are there any types of TLDs that ICANN should not consider?
A60: No, all TLDs
can play an important role in the evolution of the DNS, however TLDs like .killabc,
.ira should not be given the chance to be a TLD (as proposed in WG-C report).
Q61:
Which types, if any, are essential to the successful testing period?
A61: Unrestricted
and chartered TLDs are essential for the successful testing period.
Q62: Which
other structural factors, if any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential
success of a specific TLD proposal?
A62: It should be clarified, which negative
results could be initialised by introducing the TLD (on a political, cultural, commercial,
etc. basis).
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?
A63: ICANN should treat all proposal for a new
TLD equal, but the competence has to be approved.
ICANN has to evaluate the company
with respect to; technical skills, skills of employees, commercial and political
background.
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?
A64:
An interested company has to prove that all significant operational and policy positions
are filled in order to have the possibility to serve as registry.
If a company
has no operational or policy staff, there should be no further evaluation of officers
and employees.
Q65: How should ICANN evaluate the competence of officers and employees?
A65:
The evaluation of the proposed company information should be enough to ensure the
competence of officers and employees.
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?
A66:
Depending on the type of TLD a sufficient amount of capital has to be provided by
the registry candidates. ICANN has to decide how much capital is necessary to operate
a certain TLD, depending on the proposed business plan.
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?
A67: A diversity in business models
are welcome and essential, depending on the type of TLD. A broad variety in business
models would be most preferable in the evaluation phase.
Q68: What measures should
be in place to protect registrants from the possibility of a registry operator's
business failure?
A68: There should exist a fall-back registry which is able to
take over the operational work seamless in short time.
In order to reduce the
danger of an operator's business failure, the operators should have to report regularly
on their financial situation to ICANN.
Q70: How should ICANN evaluate the sufficiency
of proposed intellectual property protections?
A70: ICANN should consider to contact
WIPO in order to evaluate proposed intellectual property protections.
Q71: What
role should ICANN have in the start-up procedures for new unrestricted TLDs?
A71:
No further roles can be defined at this moment, important is that ICANN ensures that
the start-up procedures are fair and equal for all parties.
Q72: In what ways should
the application requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ from
those for open TLDs?
A72: The same application requirements are suitable for sponsored/chartered/restricted
and open TLDs.
Q73: Should ICANN require a statement of policy or should a statement
of how policies will be made be sufficient?
A73: In order to get clear and explicit
procedures a statement of policy should be made.
Q74: What level of openness, transparency,
and representativeness in policymaking should ICANN require?
A74: The highest
possible level of openness, transparency and representativeness should be the aim
of ICANN.