Register.com strongly endorses
the introduction of new TLDs into the market. The industry's priority should
be to generate more generic domains in order to help alleviate the current shortage
of names with .com, .net, and .org. New TLDs will reduce the dominance of .com,
and give customers more choices, all of which ultimately promote the new competitive
environment in the domain name industry. We support the controlled introduction
of new robust and useful TLDs, both general and special purpose, into the market.
Introduction of new sponsored or chartered TLDs will help individuals and businesses
categorize themselves online, helping users find the services and information they
need more easily.
It is critical for all accredited registrars to be able to provide
registration services for any of the new TLDs introduced, whether they are general
or special purpose TLDs. All accredited registrars should have equal access
to the registries for the new TLDs in order to compete in this space. As stated
above, competition ultimately benefits the end users by giving them more choices,
better prices and better service.
Principles for Introduction of new TLDs:
need to maintain stability: Q1-7
Coordination with the Internet Engineering Task
Force, the Internet Architecture Board, and others is useful, and Register.com is
also available to participate in such coordination. The key for launching new
TLDs is to authorize new servers for the new TLDs to promote true competition among
registries. The maintenance and operation of the name servers that respond
for new TLDs should be distributed across several entities and geographic regions.
In
the initial phases of registration, the foremost issue is to ensure replication of
registration information. The priority should be ensuring against the mass
loss of service if the name server infrastructure that supports new TLDs is not reliable.
An additional focus should be on accuracy. Registrars cannot exist unless the
registry is absolutely accurate.
To eliminate or reduce stability concerns, accredited
registrars should participate in a consulting committee to address issues as implementation
begins. Furthermore, there should be a test period for the name server replication
scheme as well as how the zones are generated. This could be done by adding these
new TLDs to the root, and for a test period limiting the number of new domain names,
and the content associated with those names.
The number of new TLDs introduced
will not affect stability. A controlled phased roll out can minimize stability
concerns.
Introducing new TLDs on a trial basis or reversing their introduction
is not feasible. There are no adequate ways to make registrants whole after
they have begun operating on a service. Additionally, the impact to name servers
worldwide, as well as to the root servers, is far too significant to allow this to
happen.
Characteristics in new TLD and sponsoring organization:
(a) Expand
domain space: New TLDs should be broad enough to be useful to a broad registrant
constituency. The goal is expansion of domain space. We recommend introducing
several TLDs, at least one of which will be general. Any chartered or sponsored
TLD should be useful for broad categories of registrants.
(b) Independence and
transparency of registry: The sponsoring organization must be independent of
any registrar or other registries. It should operate in an open and transparent
manner and be regularly audited for compliance with ICANN rules and policies.
(c)
Long term feasibility: The organization must provide a scalable, highly available,
multiply redundant infrastructure in order to support TLD changes. The
reliability and infrastructure of the set of organizations managing the name servers
authoritative for these TLDs are critical.
(d) Capital and management: The sponsoring
organization must have the financial and managerial wherewithal to ensure long-term
stability of the new TLDs.
Well-controlled, small-scale introduction: Q8-16
The
Internet has grown exponentially faster in recent years than it had in the 1980s.
The previously relatively slow pace for introduction of new TLDs will not be adequate
under current circumstances. While roll out of new TLDs should continue to
be measured, it must proceed promptly and in a streamlined manner to support current
Internet needs.
TLDs were initially granted to a monopoly registry operator
(and a monopoly registrar). The result was high prices, lack of consumer choice
and inadequate customer support. Introduction of competition in the registrar
arena was an important innovation, benefiting the end consumers. New TLDs should
be operated by competitor registries, with equivalent access guaranteed to all accredited
registrars.
Additionally, we have learned that ICANN needs adequate resources
from its constituencies to appropriately support and regulate TLDs. As additional
TLDs are launched, ICANN’s resources must grow proportionately to ensure the stability
of the system.
Stability can be ensured with a controlled roll out of a number
of new TLDs. An equally important goal for the roll out is expanding the domain
name system to facilitate the growing demands of the Internet. Steps that slow
down the roll out of domain space inherently undermine the goal of increasing Internet
usability, and thus should be taken only if they are necessary and likely to achieve
their goal.
In evaluating new TLDs, we support the listed factors, as well
as ensuring that:
a) the new TLDs will include at least one additional general
TLD to meaningfully increase available domain name space for a significant number
of users and create competition to .com;
b) the sponsored or chartered TLDs will
be useful for broad and robust categories of businesses or individual consumers;
and
c) the root servers should recurse for the new TLDs.
There should be a fixed
deadline for all steps of the roll out process in order to provide a level playing
field for all registrars and help promote consumer confidence. Moreover,
it is important for the business planning of the many companies around the world
that are building new TLDs into their business plans to be able to count on a reliable
roll out schedule.
Purpose for adding new TLDs: Q17-24
We support competition
in domain name registration services since .com enjoys unparalleled market advantage.
This gives the registry operating .com, .net, and .org significant market power that
could be exploited to the disadvantage of competitive registrants and consumers.
Registries should be operated by independent competitive entities in order to minimize
the risk of abuse of the public trust. It is important to roll out new TLDs as quickly
as possible to provide meaningful consumer choice.
New TLDs would not lead to confusion.
There are currently over 250 ccTLDs, which does not confuse consumers. The roll out
and operation can be managed in a manner to help avoid any potential confusion. The
number of new TLDs should be determined by the need to expand available domain name
space. At least one new fully open TLD should be introduced in order to sufficiently
expand domain name space.
Single-character domains would be problematic.
This would cause confusion because it would be closely related to real domain names
and TLDs.
Enhancing the utility of DNS: Q25-33
The domain name system
is very important to the value and stability of the Internet. Domain name space
needs to be increased to accommodate the global growth of the Internet. There
is concern that the current TLDs are running out of domain name space. We support
the introduction of both unrestricted and restricted TLDs, as long as they permit
broad and robust expansion of the domain space.
The first three principles
outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental
report are appropriate guidelines for TLD introduction and support introduction of
new open TLDs. Additionally, new TLDs should be operated by independent competitive
organizations that bring meaningful competition to other registries, and which are
equally accessible to all accredited registrars.
ICANN should have an open competitive
process to determine how and to whom to grant new TLDs. This evaluation process
should be predefined and ensure transparency, fairness, and the choice of the best
managers of the new TLDs. There should be a set period and deadline for evaluating
proposals in order to fairly compare the various proposals, and to complete the process
in a prompt manner.
Enhancing the number of available domain names: Q 34-35
There
is a shortage of desirable and useful domain names. The industry's highest
priority should be to generate more generic domains in order to help alleviate the
current shortage in .com, .net and .org. New TLDs will reduce the dominance
of .com, and provide customers with more choices, which promotes the new competitive
environment in the domain name industry
The key considerations for managers of
new limited purpose TLDs should be those organizations’ technological, managerial,
and financial stability; their independence and transparency; the organization’s
provision of equal access to that TLD by all registrars; and the integrity of their
management practices.
Policy for special-purpose TLDs: Q 36-39
Introduction
of new sponsored or chartered TLDs will help alleviate the domain name shortage and
help individuals and businesses categorize themselves online, ultimately helping
users find the services and information they need more easily. Like in the
case of open TLDs, the sponsoring organizations of new limited purpose TLDs should
not have a financial interest or other partnership-type interest in a competing registry
or in a registrar. Their procedures and management should be public and transparent.
They should be audited on a regular basis. They should provide equal access
to all competitive registrars. There should be a complaint process to file
with an oversight organization.
Oversight of the sponsoring organizations
would be promoted by instituting a process by which ICANN would address complaints
from registrars and end users. There should also be a periodic audit with publication
of results of such audit that reviews management policies, financial stability, and
technological stability and scalability. The organization must be prohibited
from using its registry power to compete in the primary and secondary domain registration
markets, the e-service markets, and other such partnering activities.
The provisions
of the charter, both as to who may register and what activities may be conducted
there, must be clearly spelled out. The charter must be subject to review and
approval by ICANN. The charter should also provide an effective mechanism
whereby the sponsoring organization may receive and promptly act upon complaints,
whether from registrants or third parties, alleging violations of these requirements.
The compliance mechanism established by ICANN should monitor the effectiveness of
these provisions in operation and also provide a medium for complaints when they
do not operate as contemplated.
New TLDs to meet new types of needs:
Q 40
We believe that current mechanisms, such as the UDRP, provide adequate IP
protection.
Start-up challenges and IPR: Q 41-48
The benefit to businesses
and consumers outweighs the potential detriment to trademark holders and brand-name
owners. Registrations should be on a first-come, first-serve basis so that
no registrant is unfairly disadvantaged. Intellectual property holders can
be adequately protected by the UDRP, which should apply to new TLDs.
Neither should
introduction of new TLDs await the adoption of a trademark list. There is no
working comprehensive trademark list in place, and no clear expectation of having
one in any reasonable period of time. Even if one were in place, relying on
any such list would pose the risk that some trademarks would be inadvertently omitted,
and thus their owners left out of the exempted protected class. The better
solution is to use the UDRP and such mechanisms to efficiently address concerns and
protect the trademark owners.
Suggested Schedule for new TLDs: 49-52
The
schedule provides two months to enter applications. This is a long period of
time. Moreover, interested organizations have been more than aware for
months prior to the suggested date of the call for proposals to be able to
adequately
prepare their proposals.
There should be more than one week for public comment.
The TLD document
for Yokohama was posted approximately a month prior to deadline
for public
comments. The actual proposals, likewise, require several weeks
for the
public to be able to analyze and comment.
The public should not be
precluded from reviewing proposals as soon as
possible in order to allow for
full consideration and comment. Therefore, the
proposals should be posted
as they are received. Proposing organizations can
always avoid giving their competition
an early look at their submissions by
deciding to wait until the deadline. Formal
applications should be posted in full.
Suggested data elements to be sought
from organizations applying to sponsor
or operate TLDs: Q 53-57
We support
expanding domain name space in order to support the rapidly
growing needs of
global commerce and the Internet community. Therefore, we
support numerous
TLDs and multiple registries.
TLD labels should be proposed by applicants.
ICANN is capable of choosing
among various proposals for TLD labels. ICANN
can also amend proposals. The
benefit of allowing TLDs to be proposed by
the applicants is the additional innovation that arises from intellectual competition.
Moreover, ICANN would be in a position
of impartial arbiter, rather than appearing
to favor any one constituency.
The appropriate length for TLD codes should be 2-5
characters including the ‘.’
We are willing to join a task force with members of
the other DNSO
constituencies to devise principles and guidelines for evaluating
the appropriate organizations to manage the new TLDs. As for the choice of
language, non-English TLDs should not be favored to the disadvantage of English.
The most ubiquitous language on the Internet is English, so that English-based TLD
labels will continue to support the needs of the largest percentage of web users.
The important issue is not how many new TLDs are introduced, but that the quantity
and quality is such as to meaningfully expand domain name space and offer competition
to .com. Therefore, there should be at least another general TLD in order to
meaningfully open the .com space. ICANN should not consider TLDs that are confusingly
similar to, or derivative of, .com in order to avoid confusion and enhance competition
in registry services.
Other structural factors that ICANN should consider are:
(1) provision of an equitable and efficient dispute resolution procedure;
(2)
accessibility of the new TLDs to all accredited registrars;
(3) cooperation with
ICANN compliance mechanisms;
(4) value added to the goal of opening competition
among registries and
TLDs; and
(4) independence of registries from each other
and non-competition within primary or secondary registration markets.
Information
about the proposed sponsor and operator of the TLD: Q 63-69
ICANN should not preclude
proposals from companies formed/forming for the purpose of operating or sponsoring
a new TLD. In order to evaluate such applicants, ICANN should review:
(1)
their business plan, operational guidelines, and policies;
(2) their financial
backing and working capital;
(3) officers and key employees (integrity, familiarity
with the Internet,
ICANN, and the domain name system);
(4) independence from
companies operating or managing current registries
and registrars; and
(5)
Compliance Review. The company must propose a system by which it will
comply
with ICANN verification and compliance mechanisms.
The key positions should be
filled. Although, if any is unfilled, such absence should be evaluated against
the applicant’s plan for filling it, and the company’s plan for addressing the void
through other means. ICANN should evaluate officers and key employees in relation
to their relevance/ability for the company’s fulfilling the ICANN guidelines for
a qualified company. ICANN should also disqualify companies whose management
or controlling interests have conflicts of interest or otherwise undermine the company’s
ability to run an independent, transparent registry.
There should a minimum capital
requirement for all registries, based on the need to comply with ICANN requirements
and guidelines and support stable, uninterrupted and scalable management of the new
TLD.
ICANN should be open to any business model, as long as such registry does
not compete in the registrar or secondary market.
Measures to protect registrants
from the possibility of a registry operator’s business
failure include:
(1) sufficient
working capital;
(2) technical ability among employees;
(3) quarterly audits
by ICANN of financials and adherence to ICANN
policies;
(4) provisions for
another registry operator to take over in case of
business failure; and
(5) effective
ICANN-managed complaint mechanism.
Information about the policies and procedures
applicable to the TLD: Q 70-74
ICANN should make policies, based on consensus of
all stakeholders,
including registrars, rather than delegate its policy-making
responsibilities to any one constituency in order not to disadvantage other constituencies.
ICANN should conduct frequent audits and establish complaint mechanism procedures
so that potential problems may be resolved promptly, and before they result in any
damage to registrants, registrars, other registries, or the DNS.
ICANN,
however, should not over-regulate the industry and allow fair business competition
to occur.
Applications for chartered or sponsored TLDs should be subject to the
same requirements as open TLDs. In addition, ICANN should set up a system to
ensure that the registrants in the restricted TLDs fit the profiles intended for
such TLDs.