On behalf of the Private Sector Working Group
on Trademarks and Domain Names:(PSWG):
Response to ICANN’s June 13, 2000
Request for Comment Regarding the
Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
The PSWG is pleased to provide our
comments on the introduction of new Top-Level Domains to the Internet Root-Zone
files. The PSWG members are primarily multi-national corporations who do business
in multiple nations, and by definition, in multiple regions of the world.
As multi-national corporations, our concerns include the stability and reliability
of the Internet for its users, including the respect and protection of trademarks
in cyberspace, including preventing misuse of famous marks through piracy
and consumer fraud, preventing consumer confusion, and ensuring that
Internet users are assured of the stable operation of the Internet as a commercial
grade communications and information medium.
The June 13, 2000, call for
comments by the ICANN Board provided 74 questions for comment regarding the
proposed introduction of new TLDs. The PSWG will respond selectively to these questions.
Q1: In the introduction of new TLDs, what steps should be taken to coordinate
with the IETF, the IAB, and other organizations dealing with Internet protocols and
standards:
A. Open consultation with these groups and other and technically
knowledgeable sources will be extremely valuable and appropriate. Additional
consultation should be undertaken with knowledgeable technical resources regarding
traffic implications related to the introduction of new gTLDs . All comments
and consultation should be summarized, and posted on the ICANN site to allow for
further input and consultation.
Q2: What stability concerns are associated with
the initial phases of registration within the TLD?
A: The introduction of
any new gTLD will bring with it the need to engage in broad communications with those
who manage DNS and register domain names for their customers, Internet
users, as well as the counsel who represent them. The goal should be to avoid
unnecessary confusion and operational conflicts by engaging in full and extensive
consultation and awareness efforts, complete with factual descriptions of emerging
issues, together with necessary deadlines, etc.
A “first come/first
serve” approach will generate a period of high volume and intense traffic.
Disputes about who registered first as well as trademark disputes are
inevitable. The experience of the competitive registrars, in registering in
.com; .net and .org illustrate that conflicts should be anticipated,
even in a highly stable system capable of handling very large
volume.
In addition, the potential registrant base, as
well as the ISPs, and others who advise users should be informed of this real, potential
problem. Moreover, we believe the mere posting
of notices on the ICANN web site is not sufficient. Rather,
a period of several weeks should be allowed while ICANN undertakes an
appropriate broad and inclusive awareness effort.
Without proper notice and clear
procedures and trademark protections, new gTLDs can confuse users, reduce
the ability of Internet users to find those entities or sites they seek
easily, increase the number of bad faith registrations, disrupt
the stability of the Internet, and cause increased delays
due to legal considerations.
Further, ICANN should ensure that any new registry
is able to deal with traffic demands, provide registrations with integrity and security,
abide by ICANN’s policies and procedures, and has minimal operational problems.
Q3:
What can be done to eliminate or reduce these stability concerns:
A. New gTLDs
should be introduced very slowly with an effective process in place to protect trademarks
and provide a Uniform Dispute Resolution Process to deal with conflicts. New
registries should be subject to rigorous and thorough review to ensure their
ability to meet their new obligations, both in terms of performance, and operationally.
All data must be escrowed, so that if the new registry fails, the operation
can be transferred to another registry operator. Moreover, sufficient
funding must be allocated to support operations for a set period of several
months. Further, the technical plan of the new registry must be assessed
based on pre-determined guidelines.
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified
by introducing a large number of gTLDs at once?
A. The PSWG believes that
introducing a large number of gTLDs at one time will increase stability problems
and the confusion of both users and those who seek then to find organizations, businesses,
and entities on the Internet. In addition, the PSWG notes that ICANN
has limited resources, and multiple and competing responsibilities. The PSWG
agrees with the business constituency that the concerns would be magnified by introducing
a large number of TLDs at once.
Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing
the introduction of a significant new gTLD once it goes into operation?
A.
We see no way to reverse a new gTLD once it goes into operation. We believe
that ICANN could be faced with considerable liability in such a situation.
Q6. Is it feasible to introduce a gTLD on a trial basis, giving clear notice
that the gTLD might be discontinued after the trial is completed.
Ans. No.
While there is no technical reason why an experimental gTLD cannot be withdrawn,
we consider it politically and economically unviable.
Q7. To ensure continued
stability what characteristic should be sought in a proposed TLD and in the organizations
proposing to sponsor and/or operate it.
Ans. The selection of new TLDs
should be fully separate from the competitive bid process used to select registry
operators. Registries should not self-determine the new TLD; nor should a registry
assume intellectual property rights related to a TLD. There must
be a process developed and established which provides a framework for selecting new
names. Broad consultation should be undertaken. A competitive bid process should
be conducted to select registries. All registries should be operated as non profits,
without ownership rights to the intellectual property of the TLD, or the names and
contact information which are gathered.
Efforts should be made to minimize confusion
with existing TLDs. Significantly, introducing names directly competitive
with .com may primarily duplicate the .com space in that space. Names will
be tied up in either UDRP processes, or legal battles, delaying and confusing users.
All
registrants of all TLDs should be required to provide accurate and up to date name
and contact information. All registrars of new TLDs would be required to provide
and to contribute to a centralized, fully searchable and accurate, WHOIS, free and
without cost to the user. All registrars must adhere to existing and
modified UDRP guidelines. Adequate and effective
means of protecting trademarks must be incorporated into the roll out of any new
TLD. Moreover, there must be an effective enforcement process, including ongoing
monitoring, of compliance with the above, and with ICANN policies.
B.
A Well-Controlled, Small-Scale Introduction as a “Proof of Concept” for Possible
Future Introductions
Q8: To what extent is the experience gained from introducing
gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to present-day circumstances?
Ans.: Only visionaries
could have envisioned the exponential growth and penetration of the Internet in the
past few years. The e-commerce applications of today did not exist in
the 1980’s when the Internet was still viewed as a testbed for academic and research
applications. The change in the role of the Internet, and in the marketplace,
have created new commercial applications.
Along with this growth of commercial
applications, we have seen a growth of misuses of the DNS for the purpose of exploiting
the intellectual property rights of legitimate businesses. Examples of these
misuses include direct infringements, using forms of famous marks to put up a piracy
or pornographic sites, and even using dilutive forms of a name to draw traffic
to a competitor’s site. A serious problem has also developed with individuals
taking legitimate names and trying to resell them, either to the rightful owner,
or to others, for sometimes, very significant amounts of money. Today, some
of these opportunists have come to be called “cybersquatters”. This
area has been an ongoing concern of the PSWG.
In order to ensure the
stability of the Internet applications, we believe that trademark protection must
be ensured. The PSWG agrees that intellectual property rights must be carefully
balanced with the right of free and open expression in order to protect rights owners,
the consuming public, and the robust growth of the Internet medium.
We believe
that the failure to require accurate and reliable name contact information
was and continues to be a major issue in enabling consumer fraud
and piracy situations within the.com, .net. and .org spaces. Therefore,
we consider ensuring accurate and reliable legal name and contact information an
imperative in the introduction of any new TLD.
Q9: To the extent it is applicable,
what are the lessons to be learned from that experience?
Ans.:
One significant
lesson is the importance of requiring complete and accurate legal name and contact
information for all registrants.
It is difficult to evaluate the usefulness
of restrictions to given gTLDs, since NSI and other registrars did not adhere to
any distinctions about who could register in .com; .org; and .net.
No thoughtful
work has been chartered to examine the usefulness of restrictions, which would seem
to be a “first step for ICANN. ICANN needs to give careful consideration to
its priorities, and core responsibilities for the integrity and reliability of the
Internet in assessing the options presented. Undertaking a survey analysis
of the experience of both gTLDs and ccTLDs in restricting registrations could be
done in very short time frame, and does not negate the possible addition of new generics,
or chartered TLDs. The survey, to be commissioned by ICANN, and drawing on
WIPO and other unbiased sources, would cover whether the new TLDs are doing what
they intended to do by analyzing whether they are actually opening up new name spaces.
For example, such a survey would investigate whether trademark owners and other businesses
and individuals are merely registering domain names that they already own in other
gTLDs defensively in the new TLDs. And, whether instances of cybersquatting
are increasing in the new gTLDs?
Overall, there should be
a mechanism to prevent cybersquatting and other abuses and to protect the intellectual
property owners rights, balanced with the interests of legitimate
rights in the registration and holding of names. The UDRP seems to be working well
in the majority of cases for those who choose to implement it. The UDRP assumes that
recourse to national law remains an option; different national remedies, such as
the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999, are available
to rights holders, should they find the UDRP unsuitable, or chose to appeal a UDRP.
However, it appears that the UDRP is already becoming one widely used choice.
Approximately 700 cases have been already been filed.
All new TLDs should be subject
to the UDRP. Further, cybersquatting laws should be harmonised throughout the
world to provide additional, reliable remedies for the trademark owners.
Q10:
What lessons, if any, can be learned regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience
of the ccTLD registries?
Ans.: Many PSWG companies are registrants
in the ccTLDs. Where we are not doing business, we might prefer not to have to register,
but we often have to, for defensive purposes to protect our brands. However,
many registrations are made so that the MNC (Multi-national corporation) can establish
an online identity to conduct business in that country.
There are some ccTLDs
who have begun to operate as generics; in the experience of the PSWG companies, thy
are not all alike in their operation. Recently, three new ccTLDs have been opened
by their controlling authorities to registration by those who would not otherwise
qualify under traditional ccTLD geographical restrictions. There seems to be
a problem with the encouragement by one or two of these entities of the auctioning
of trademark names, or derivatives of trademark names. There seems to be no effective
mechanism to prevent such exploitation of legitimate interests of the rightful owners,
who must sue in order to get their names back, or pay outrageous sums of money.
We are careful to point out that PSWG companies have not encountered these problems
in all of the ccTLDs operating as generics. We do not object to
ccTLDs operating as generics; however, we recommend that there be a policy governing
such operations, and a process to deal with the problems which we just described.
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?
ANSWER:
See answer to Question 10. It would be useful for the ccTLDs to undertake a brief
survey of the variety of different operations, possibly in conjunction with ICANN.
Further, ICANN could ask the ccTLDs to develop and recommend a policy to govern this
area, seeking input from the affected stakeholders, including the global trademark
and business community. The PSWG would be willing to provide one or two of
its members to participate in such a project.
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
Ans.: Yes
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?
Ans.: Any evaluation will be
a resource-intensive process, and will consume the limited resources of the ICANN
staff. Therefore, it may be preferable to stagger the evaluation dates.
Any action to open additional TLDs beyond those authorized in the initial roll-out
should therefore be delayed until all initial evaluations have been completed
and an effective consultation period has been undertaken with the stakeholder community.
Q15: Should choices regarding the types of TLDs included in the initial introduction
seek to promote effective evaluation of:
• the feasibility 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?
Ans.: All new TLDs need to meet minimum and
consistent standards to prevent forum shopping, and confusion for both users
and rights holders. Accurate legal name and contact information should be required
from all registrars/registries from all registrants. All registrars/registries
need to participate in and support a uniform approach to providing complete WHOIS
information, and to support the availability of their data for a universal WHOIS
service(s).
The PSWG urges that a limited number of variables be used in the initial
introduction of TLDs to enable an effective an efficient evaluation period.
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?
Ans.: The PSWG urges that
the ICANN Board ensure that any new introduction is done in a slow and controlled
manner. Ideally, the PSWG would prefer that no more than 1 new gTLD be introduced
in the initial trial period; however, we are open to considering 1-3, If there are
sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that trademarks are protected in these new
TLDs.
However, we strongly recommend that there must be a realistic appraisal
of ICANN’s capacity to accredit, administer and evaluate the effectiveness of the
initial set of new TLDs, as well as any technical limitations that need to be respected
in order to ensure the continued stability of the DNS.
Enhancing Competition for
Registration Services
Q18: Should the desire for diverse vendors of registry services
in open TDS be an important motivation in adding fully open TLDs?
Ans. While this
seems a worthwhile goal, the PSWG fails to see why creating financial opportunities
for registries should be a goal of ICANN. Instead, the PSWG companies believe that
ICANN’s goal should be creating logical expansion of the name space as
needed, while ensuring the security and integrity of the Internet. Diversity
of suppliers can be accomplished in the registrar space.
Q19: Would the introduction
of additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among
Internet users?
Ans.: The PSWG is concerned that undifferentiated TLDs will
also result in duplication of the name space, representing new revenue opportunities
for whomever wins the registry and registrar contracts, but may do little to increase
the name space in a logical manner.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into
account, should one or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
Ans.:
At this time, the PSWG has concerns about new open TLDs. However, we have noted
that we are open to the introduction of a very small number of TLDs.
Q21: How
many?
Ans.: The total number of additional TLDs that are introduced should be
small and done in a slow and controlled manner, with a commitment to an effective
evaluation period/process. No more than 1-3, of any combination should be introduced.
Q23: What can be done to maximize the prospect that new fully open TLDs will
be attractive to consumers as alternatives to .com?
Ans.: In
order to introduce a competitor to .com to consumers, a major awareness and advertising
promotion would undoubtedly be needed.
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?
Ans.: No. This would not increase the space because
those who registered in the .com space would have to register in this space as well.
The PSWG opposes such an approach.
Enhancing the Utility of the DNS
Q25: Is
increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal
in the introduction of new TLDs?
Ans.: Technical resources are very skeptical about
the feasibility of the DNS to effectively serve this need. There may be some
associated benefits from easily understood, logical and limited expansions.
Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter
to this goal?
Ans.: We are concerned about duplication of the name space, as well
as the consumer confusion and potential for misuse of intellectual property.
Q28: Is
the concept of TLD “charters” helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the
DNS?
Ans.: We are open to considering the role of charters, if the will and ability
exist to enforce the restrictions in TLDs. ICANN should undertake a broad consultation
on just this topic, and the options presented. In the long run, other technological
solutions, such as extensive improvements in browsers, search engines, etc. are really
how to deal with this problem.
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?
Ans.: Yes.
Q30: Do those principles preclude the introduction
of any new fully open TLDs?
ANSWER: Probably.
Q32: Should chartered TLDs
be introduced according to a pre-defined system, or should proposals be evaluated
on an individual basis?
ANSWER: It makes no sense to have a random development
of the name space; however, it is unclear that an unlimited expansion of the
name space makes any sense. Initially, we believe that a very small set should
be considered, and a logical framework established. That way, if the number
of additional TLD remains only 1-3, there will be logical expansion.
If after initial introduction and evaluation it is determined that more name
space is required, there will be a framework to follow.
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?
ICANN has the responsibility
to develop an effective process, which can enable the evaluation of new names.
It is not useful, practical, or effective to evaluate any proposal on an “individualized
basis”.
Q34: Has the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an
unacceptably low level?
There is no quantified indication that there is exhaustion
of the names space. Instead, to date, there seems to be a reliance on anecdotal
evidence that someone cannot register the name they wish, because someone
else has already registered it. The recent announcement of support of
64 character strings appears to offer relief. In addition, some
predict that over time (i.e.,2-3 years), the role of domain names will become increasingly
insignificant, with consumers increasingly relying on search engines, browsers, and
annotated directories to find the businesses and organizations they want.
We recommend
that ICANN consider the chartering of an experts group from industries engaged in
the development of such products/services, to report on the state of art in these
areas, and the role they may play in the near future. Such an effort should
be linked to the assessment of the new gTLDs to see if they are actually opening
up new name space.
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 PSWG does not support introducing new TLDs, which are not
differentiated from the present ones.
Q.36: Should the formulation
of policies for limited purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In
all cases, or only in some?
A. ICANN must develop a framework for all policies
for all TLDs. This should serve as the platform upon which a sponsoring
organization can build. In all cases, an open and public consultative process should
be required for the final policies which govern any TLD.
Q. 37. What measures
should be employed to encourage or require that the sponsoring organization is appropriately
representative eof the TLD’s intended stakeholders?
A. ICANN should require the
sponsoring organization to develop and publish for public comment, a thorough description
of the planned management, outreach, and engagement with the intended stakeholders,
etc.
ICANN should maintain an evaluation process to ensure that commitments are
met.
Q. 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?
A. See A.37. Sponsored TLDS
will still have an impact upon other Internet users, since those who access a domain
name are frequently not from the community of domain name holders. Therefore,
it is essential for ICANN to ensure that there is a broad and thorough consultative
process, that input is taken and acted on, and that there is an oversight process
in place from the inception of the launch of any new TLD.
Q39: How should global
policy requirements (adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements of representativeness,
interoperability requirements, etc.) be enforced?
The provisions of the charter,
both as to who may register in a TLD and what activities may be conducted there,
must be clearly spelled out by ICANN. Activities that enable infringement or
dilution of intellectual property rights should be specifically prohibited.
The charter must be subject to review and approval by ICANN and should give the sponsoring
organization or its designee the authority to enforce these requirements.
One way to allow for charter enforcement could be to add a provision to the current
ICANN UDRP, so that the indices of bad faith would include “domain name not being
used in accordance with ICANN approved charter”.
The charter should also provide
mechanisms to enable the sponsoring organization to receive and act upon complaints,
whether from registrants or third parties, alleging violations of these requirements.
For instance, the sponsoring organization should be able to grant immediate
provisional relief (including suspension of the registration) in appropriate circumstances,
as well as a non-judicial means for obtaining a prompt independent determination
of the merits of the claim. The charter should require registrants to submit
to the jurisdiction of this non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism (UDRP) and
also to the jurisdiction of an appropriate court, as is the case with the existing
generics registrars/registry. ICANN should monitor the effectiveness of these provisions
in operation and also provide a medium for complaints or appeals when someone is
dissatisfied with the response.
Start-Up Challenges and the Protection
of Intellectual Property
Q41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks
to intellectual property rights that warrant additional protections?
Ans.: Yes.
There is significant evidence, validated during the WIPO project, which documented
the kinds of ongoing problems associated with existing gTLDs. Further,
experience in the existing (generics) strongly suggests that a new TLDs will serve
as an additional “ means” for bad-faith actors to capitalize on the goodwill associated
with intellectual property.
Q42: Should the protections afforded intellectual property
in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type of TLD?
Ans.: Protection
afforded to intellectual property should be consistently applied across all types
of TLDs, regardless of their nature or purpose.
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?
Ans.: Yes. The UDRP and
court proceedings have served as successful forums in which disputes concerning alleged
violations of intellectual property rights may be heard. In addition, both
forums should be expanded for alleged violations of intellectual property rights
in any new TLDs, in particular, when there is an occurrence of a charter violation.
The appeal process with respect to both dispute resolution systems is also
useful.
In addition to post registration remedies through the UDRP and court proceedings,
there also needs to be procedures to minimize bad faith registration of domain names
at the “front end” before a new TLD comes online. The PSWG supports the concept
of an exclusion process when a new TLD is first opened for registrations that would
enable trademark owners to protect their brands in the new registry, or otherwise
minimize bad faith registration of brands as domain names. (Examples: Both
the Sunrise and Daybreak proposals attempted to provide such a mechanism.)
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?
Ans.: The Internet
has become a critical information and communications medium. Yet, little discussion
has taken place about how these changes will affect the users: businesses and consumers
on the Internet. A quick survey of the number and role of the various organizations
engaged to date make it clear that there is yet no effective participation by user
communities or organizations. It is essential to the stability of the Internet that
the ICANN Board gives consideration to the concerns of the Internet users, along
with the existing participants in the ICANN process.
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?
Ans.: We support a slow,
manageable, structured, and equitable approach to launching a new TLD, including
mechanisms designed to deter bad-faith registration of domain names. We also support
the need to enable the use of domain names for purposes including fair use.
Q46:
Is the 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?
Ans.: While it appears that
such a list cannot be developed at this time, we recommend that ICANN enlist WIPO
support for continuing to examine such an exclusion mechanism and what criteria might
be feasible. {What about mentioning daybreak proposal as interim measure?
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?
Ans.:
Yes. The evaluation can be completed by the annual meeting.
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?
Answer: A
revision can be “fast tracked” and may be accomplished by the Annual Meeting, at
least in draft form.
Q. 49: Does the schedule allow sufficient time for formulation
of proposals?
A. The PSWG is concerned with the time frames. They do not seem practical.
Suggested Schedule for the Introduction of New TLDs
Q50: Does the schedule
allow sufficient time for public comment?
Ans.: No. Effective and useful
public comment cannot be provided in a one week period. We recommend a four
week comment period.
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?
Ans.: All proposals should be posted for public comment as they are
received to allow the greatest possible time for public analysis and comment. All
proposals should allow for a minimum comment period of a few weeks – 3-4 weeks.
Q52: Should
the formal applications be posted in full for public comment? If not, which parts
of the applications should remain private?
Ans.: All formal applications should
be posted in full for public comment.
Information About the Proposed TLD
Q.
53 Should proposals choose a single proposed TLD or numerous possibilities.
A.
The PSWG does not support the idea that individual entities self select the new gTLDs.
Only one TLD should be proposed by any single entity.
Q. 54: 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?
A.
The PSWG recommends that ICANN develop a process to select the list of new TLD labels.
ICANN should engage in a consultative process which generates a list which is maintained
by IANA.
Q.55: Should there be minimum or maximum length requirements for
TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate to avoid possible future conflicts with ISO
3166-I codes?
A. ICANN should ensure that there is no conflict or confusion. That
would mean that no two digit codes would be allowed, in order to avoid confusion
with the ccTLD designations.
Q.56: Should there be restrictions
on the types of TLD labels that are established: for example a prohibition of country
codes?
A. Yes, see A. 55, above.
Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting
between potential TLD labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
Ans.:
At this time, it does not seem possible to favor non-English language TLDs. It seems
to the PSWG that much more work is needed to deal with the issues of English language
TLDs. We are presently not taking a position on non-English TLDs, other
than to note that it is important to prevent balkanization of the Internet into segregated
zones where addressers on one domain cannot recognize other addressers.
Q58: How
many new TLDs of each type should be included in the initial introduction?
Ans.: We
are concerned that there be a slow and controlled, and responsible expansion of the
name space, with protection for trademarks.
at this time.
Q62: Which other structural
factors, if any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential success of a
specific TLD proposal?
Ans.: All TLD applicants should be asked to spell out how
they propose to fulfill the following criteria:
(1) collection and maintenance
of accurate registrant contact details;
(2) provision of unfettered and robust
centralized and fully searchable WHOIS access to the public via the Internet on a
24 hour/7 day-per-week basis, without cost to the user;
(3) provision of an equitable
and efficient dispute resolution procedure;
(4) mechanism for protection of trademark
interests;
(5) cooperation with ICANN compliance mechanism concerning the preceding
criteria.
Information About the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the TLD
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?
Ans.: ICANN should first establish the criteria by which it
will assess the ability of any entity/company to operate a TLD. Any company
wishing to operate or sponsor a new TLD should file with ICANN proposed operational
and policy guidelines and conditions.
At a minimum: the PSWG recommends
that these conditions include:
(1) Registrant Contact Data: The company
must establish a system by which it shall maintain and provide complete and accurate
name and contact data that is kept current. Failure to meet this requirement
should result in termination of the registration.
(2) WHOIS Accessibility:
The company must provide free, real-time access via the Internet, to a current database
of contact data on all registrants in the TLD. The data should be fully searchable
across all fields and be freely available to the public. And, this information
should be provided to a centralized resource(s) who will provide cross
registrar WHOIS. Reasonable fees can be charged for such provision.
(3)
Dispute Resolution Policy: The existing UDRP process should provide the basis
for the UDRP for new TLDs, including any revisions.
(4) Trademarks Compliance:
The company must comply with all requirements and guidelines in place concerning
the protection of trademarks. (5) Compliance Review: The company must
propose a system by which it will comply with ICANN verification and compliance mechanisms.
(6) Financial Stability: The company must be carefully scrutinized with
respect to its financial backing and stability.
(7) Performance Requirements:
Registries must meet ICANN established performance requirements.
Q64: If a company
has significant operational or policy positions not yet filed, how should ICANN evaluate
the level of competence of officers and employees?
Ans.: ICANN’s responsibility
is to ensure the integrity and operational functioning of the Internet. Any
company desiring to be taken seriously will meet the requirements put forward by
ICANN.
Q65: How should ICANN evaluate the competence of officers and employees?
Ans.: ICANN
should require all registry applicants to provide complete details of who the officers
are and what their qualifications are. ICANN recently published criteria for the
ICANN board members. Similar characteristics are needed for officers of new
registries.
Q69: What should be the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient
stability and interoperability?
PSWG is providing a limited response at this time.
We note that at a minimum, technical requirements must ensure 24 by 7 operations,
with secure operations and redundancy. Provision of WHOIS and participation
in the creation of a universal WHOIS is also needed. Further, registries must
meet ICANN established performance requirements.
Information About the Policies
and Procedures Applicable to the TLD
Q. 73: Should ICANN require a statement
of policy or should a statement of how policies will be made sufficient?
A. ICANN
should require a statement of policy so that they can evaluate planned operations.
Statements of how policies will be developed are not adequate since they give no
indication of the nature of the policy itself.
Q. 74: What level of openness, transparency,
and representativeness in policy making should ICANN require?
A. ICANN
should ensure that policy making is open and participatory. ICANN itself must provide
the initial framework for policy to avoid forum shopping. As noted in
response to Question 36, ICANN should establish certain mandatory thresholds for
all policies.