I want to comment about the 74 questions about new gTLDs. I must say first
that there are many of this questions that I am agree with the Milton Mueller comments.
Other's I have my own comments.
----------------
Questions 1 to 4:
For
the questions 1 to 4 of new gTLDs issue, I just have to comment that I am agree with
Milton. Technical issues is no a concern since the actual DNS system have the capability
to handle addition of many new gTLDs and also is able to handle its technical management.
I
think the real concerns are in the procedures to implement, delegate, and policy
making which will rule such gTLDs.
-----------------
Question 5: Are there any
practical means of reversing the introduction of a significant new TLD once it goes
into operation?
Answer: If this question is made, then it is because whatever reason
it is, a policyregarding this question has to be made, just in any case that such
situation takes place in the future. An example of a policy regarding this issue
could be: "ICANN can cancell any gTLD when they want. Holders will be noticed with
one month (or whatever months they can) before such action takes place. They will
be indemized with
an amount equivalent to the annual payment less months used
already."
----------------------
Question 6:
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?
Answer: I am agree. A trial period also would
make that speculation take place and even would promote cybersquatting.
----------------------
Question
16: 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?
Answer: I think
no limits in number should be.
----------------------
Question 20: Taking all
the relevant factors into account, should one or more fully open TLDs be included
in the initial introduction?
Question 21: How many?
Milton commented: "There
should be at least 5 new fully open TLDs included in the initial introduction. They
should be geographically distributed.
There should be a Korean or Chinese-language
equivalent of dot
com. These new registries should be given a strong expectation
that
they will be allowed to add at least two more names to their
repertoire, in order
to match NSI?s repertoire, at some point in
the not-too-distant future."
Answer:
I think that more than 5 really. In fact, maybe 5 for cultural/language purposes
and the other initial 5 for sector purposes (commercial, non-commercial, etc).
Remember that China, Korea and Japanm though
some characters are similar, there are other that are not so similar. Remember exists
Arab, Hebrew, Indi, Russian, etc. I think they have to be taken in count also if
TLDs with culture/language purposes will be included in the initial introducction
of gTLDs.
-----------------------
Quetion 22:
How effective would other fully
open TLDs be in providing
effective competition to .com?
Answer
Agree with
Milton's comment here. However, things you are saying here can be restricted with
policy making. For exampe, can be policies that states the service quality to achieve.
This even can include in the policy making the minimum telecommunication facilities
they have to have, backup systems, etc. And even such policy making can be
revised from year to year (because telecommunications changes also very fast).
---------------------
Question
24: 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 ample.1.com>)? Should
the single-character .com domains be made available for possible registry usage in
conjunction with the initial group of additional TLDs?
Answer: Agree with
Milton's comments here. Also I want to add that as far as more gTLDs are introduced,
then the less need of SLD would be
needed.
-----------------------
Question
28
Is the concept of TLD "charters" helpful in promoting the
appropriate evolution
of the DNS?
Answer:
There should be policies that regulates or states the minimum
requirements for general administrative and technical management of new gTLDs.
But
also I think that if new gTLDs will be created thinking in many sectors within commercial
and non-commercial ones, then of course chartered gTLDs should exists, to satisfy
such sectors. Also such chartered gTLDs would decrease the chance of cybersquatting
and also would drecrease the chance of commercial sector claim for ownership of a
name in the non-commercial gTLD and viceversa.
Of course, all of this is true
with the correct policies.
Regarding this policy I am thinking just now that
an UDRP policy can be added: "The ones who register within "such gTLD" renounce to
claim for the same domain in "such and such and such gTLDs" while you are holder
of a domain within this gTLD", for example.
------------------
Question 32:
Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined system, or should
proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
Answer:
Yes, in order to chartered
gTLDs be created and delegated, some policy making has to be taken in count. Requisites
have to be fullfilled in order to obtain the delegation of a new chartered gTLD and
it will vay depending on the purpose of the gTLD itself.
------------------
Question
33: 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?
Answer:
Only the ones that are pertaining to technical
issues, since in technical issues is what depend the stability and orderly evolution
of the DNS. Of course other policy making has to be taken in count, but this
is not regarding this question.
------------------
Question 34: Has the inventory
of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
Answer:
Yes.
Agree with Milton. But this is happening because there wasn't regulation
about registering domain names. Many people has invested in a bunch of domain names
just with the purpose and hope of the sell them for a lot of money.
------------------------
Question
37: What measures should be employed to encourage or require that a sponosring organization
is appropriately representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
Answer:
Maybe
ICANN cannot decide who is who, but ICANN can make policies that helps in the process
of election of qualifying "representatives".
---------------------------------------
Question
38: 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?
Answer:
I think this question is more intended
to refer to "created interests". Again, policy making will help a lot in order to
avoid created interests.
-------------------
Question 39: How should global
policy requirements (adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements of representativeness,
interoperability requirements, etc.) be enforced?
Answer:
Read
my answer at Question.28. Also I can say that ICANN is a "Regulator/Coordinator Entity"
already. Global Policies are not necessary to be enforced since the policies made
by ICANN are inherently made for be complied.
ICANN can add to by laws that every accreditation they grant to perform services
inherent to registry and registrars are subject to the monitoring of ICANN and if
registries or registrars fails in accomplish policies then
acreditation can be cancelled, but technical operation has to
continue to be performed until the adminstrative management is delegated to another
acredited organization. Because, of course, a policy like this has to assure technical
stability and a continue service.
--------------------------------------
Question
41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property
rights that warrant additional protections?
Answer: Agree with Milton. Also
countries legislation has to contribute to this.
----------------------------
Question
42: Should the protections afforded intellectual property in the start-up pahse of
new TLDs differ depending on the type of TLD?
Answer:
Agree with Milton, but also has to be stated
that commercial organizations cannot register domains in non-commercial gTLDs.
----------------
Question
43: 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, regadless of their type?
Answer:
Protection
is needed, specially for non-commercial organizations holding similar or equal domain
names than commercial ones.
-------------------------------------
Question 45:
What mechanisms for start up of a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons
receive a fair chance to obtain registrations?
Answer:
One per person or organization can be good method. This policy
can be temporal until the statistics detect a low level of amounts of registrations
of domain in comparison with a previous period.
-----------
Question 47: 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?
Answer:
No. Introduction of new gTLDs shouldn't depend
on UDRP itself. If UDRP is evaluated not successful, then modify it.
--------------
Question
48: 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 a chartered
gTLD? How long would implementing such a revision to the UDRP likely take?
Answer:
Yes.
But also has to has a deadline. If the launch of new gTLDs are setted, then of course,
revisions and addition has to be made before such launching.
However, launching
of new gTLDs shouldn't depend in if such revisions and additions are ready or not.
---------------------
Everything
else from 1 to 50 I am agree with Milton.
Best Regards
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Sustainable
Development Networking Programme/Panama