AT&T’s Comments to ICANN’s June 13, 2000
Request for Comment
Regarding the
Introduction of New Top-Level Domains(Submitted for: Marilyn S. Cade - AT&T)
AT&T
is pleased to provide comments on the introduction of new Top-Level Domains to the
Internet Root-Zone files. AT&T is a multi-national corporation who does business
in multiple regions of the world – in fact, we do business in over 220 countries
and territories. As a multi-national corporation, our customers are located across
geographic boundaries and in many different political and legal jurisdictions.
We are both builders and users of the Internet. Our concerns include ensuring
that those who use the Internet are assured of the stable operation of the Internet
as a commercial grade communications and information medium. In addition, we are
concerned about ensuring protection of trademarks in cyberspace through preventing
dilution and confusingly similar misuses of famous marks. as well as ensuring effective
means to prevent piracy, increased incidences of consumer fraud, and preventing consumer
confusion.
AT&T will respond selectively to the 74 questions. We have omitted
questions we did not respond to.
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.
ANSWER: Certainly consultation with
these groups is essential. We agree that ICANN should ensure that they
have access to knowledgeable and expert resources to assist the board in making informed
decisions. Additional consultation should be undertaken with knowledgeable technical
experts regarding traffic implications related to introductions of new TLDs.
These experts may well be members of IETF/IAB, but might also be drawn from
non members as well, who are acknowledged experts in particular and relevant areas.
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?
ANSWER:
The goal should be to avoid unnecessary confusion and/or operational conflicts by
engaging in full and extensive consultation and awareness efforts, complete with
factual descriptions of what is happening, when, etc.
Upon announcement of opening
registration, a “gold rush” should be expected as legitimate users wishing to register,
and those who want to find ways to exploit the new name availability to resell names
will all want to be first to register. The use of a “first come/first served” approach
will guarantee a period of high volume and intense traffic. Disputes are likely
to occur even where no trademark disputes exists, about who registered first.
The experience of the competitive registrars, in registering in .com; .net and .org,
illustrate that conflicts should be anticipated, even in a highly stable and well-staffed
system capable of handling very high volume.
Provisions must be made to
deal with this “gold rush” volume to avoid overloading and conflicting with other
legitimate registrations. Trademark owners are already being contacted
by individuals/companies who are marketing services where one can contract with them
to ensure “first come” advantages in new or potential names which might be
selected by ICANN. Some of these proposals include assertions that “pre-reservation”
of names is possible. We note this merely as an acknowledgement that ICANN
will have many challenges to face in dealing with effective mechanisms in the introduction
of new gTLDs.
AT&T supports a preemption process by which “famous trademark” holders
are allowed to preemptively register their marks in any new TLDs. We appreciate that
this is highly controversial; however, we consider it important to limit the unneeded
initial conflicts in any new name space.
In addition, ICANN must pay
significant attention to the issue of how to inform the potential registrant base,
as well as the ISPs, and others who advise users of the changes underway. A
period of several weeks should be allowed while ICANN undertakes an appropriate broad
and inclusive awareness effort which will need to include op ed pieces, media briefings,
and briefings of the ISP and registrar communities, as well as business associations;
materials should include clearly spelled out guidelines available for ISPs and registrars.
Without
an effective awareness campaign, new gTLDs can confuse Internet users, reduce the
ability of users to find those entities or sites they seek easily and increase the
number of bad faith registrations, thereby disrupting the operational stability and
usability of the Internet. We support developing effective means
to limit these conflicts in the introduction of any new TLDs.
A further area of
concern is if a new registry turns out to be unable to deal with traffic demands,
or experiences significant problems with providing registrations with integrity and
security, fails to abide by ICANN’s policies and procedures or encounters severe
operational difficulties, thereby creating significant problems and necessitating
intervention by ICANN, including potential re-allocation of the assignment.
ICANN should have a pre-established plan to deal with such contingencies which ensures
protection of the users caught in such a situation.
Q3: What can be done to eliminate
or reduce these stability concerns?
ANSWER: 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.
Moreover, data must be escrowed,
so that if the new registry fails, the operation can be transferred to another registry
operator. Further, sufficient financial funding must be available to
support operations for a set period of several months.
It is critical that the
technical plan of the new registry must be assessed, based on pre-determined guidelines
developed with the advice and consultation of acknowledged experts in key areas,
including security, prevention of domain name hijacking, etc. All machines
must be fully secured and should provide for redundant operations; operations
and services should be provided on a 24X7 basis, among other considerations.
Finally,
new gTLDs should be introduced very slowly; in conjunction with a process to protect
trademarks and provide an enhanced (Modified) unified dispute resolution policy (UDRP)
to deal with conflicts.
Q4: Would these stability concerns be magnified by introducing
a large number of gTLDs at once?
ANSWER: We believe so. AT&T
believes that introducing a large number of gTLDs will increase the stability issues
and confusion for both users and those who seek to find organizations, businesses,
and entities on the net. We also note that there are technical concerns about
introducing “a large number” of TLDs.
In addition, ICANN itself has limited
resources, and multiple and competing responsibilities. There will be a considerable
oversight burden on the ICANN resources with the introduction of a single new TLD;
these demands will be multiplied with the number and variations of operation of registries,
rules of operation, etc.
Q5: Are there any practical means of reversing the introduction
of a significant new TLD once it goes into operation?
ANSWER: Entities build
businesses and identities around their domain name/online presence. We see no way
to reverse a new TLD once it goes into operation. We believe that ICANN could
be faced with considerable legal liability in such a situation, from those who were
led to believe that the TLD was permanent and made significant financial investments
accordingly.
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?
ANSWER:
No. While there is no technical reason why an experimental TLD cannot be withdrawn,
we consider it politically and economically not viable. A “temporary” domain
name would have no commercial utility. See Q5 response above.
Q7. To ensure
continued stability, what characteristics should be sought in a proposed TLD and
in the organization proposing to sponsor and/or operate it?
ANSWER: We will address
this question in two parts.
The selection of new TLDs should be fully separate
from the competitive bid process used to select registry operators. We do not
support allowing registries to self-determine the new TLD which they would seek to
operate. Nor do we support allowing a registry to own intellectual property rights
in a TLD.
We recommend that ICANN charter a working effort to develop proposals
which can ensure a logical framework for any expansion of the name space, including
the process for selecting new name options. Once this proposal/proposals are
developed, they should be posted for broad consultation by the Internet stakeholder
community. A competitive bid process should then be used to select registries
which should be required to meet established, and consistent operational, security,
and financial conditions. All registries should be operated as non-profits, with
no ownership rights to the intellectual property of the TLD, or the names and contact
information, which are gathered.
Registries should not be allowed
to select their own registrars, but a process similar to the process and requirements
for competitive registrars for the .com, .org, and .net should be followed.
Registrars must be accredited by ICANN and should be required to comply with the
ICANN approved UDRP (including modifications which are made), complete WHOIS, and
provide data for the generation of universal WHOIS services.
Consideration should
be given to how best to introduce new TLDs which are not confusing with existing
TLDs. Introducing a name like .biz, or .co, will, to some extent, result in
some limitation in expansion of the name space, since many of those who register
in the .com space registration will feel compelled to register in the new space,
as well. Those who seek to register competing or conflicting names with the
already registered .com names will be engaged in disputes with the existing .com
registrants. A number of the names in the new TLD will be tied up in either
UDRP processes, or legal battles, delaying and confusing users. It is important
to note that many of the legitimate holders of .com names where trademarks are involved
essentially have little choice but to register their names in the new open space,
thus resulting in increased revenue to the registrars, but not in maximum increased
and differentiated name space. This isn’t ideal for anyone.
Adequate
and effective means of protecting trademarks and dealing with other kinds of conflicts
must be incorporated into the roll out of any new TLD (e.g. effective UDRP processes).
Again, it is essential that processes are in place to ensure that all registrants
under all TLDs should be required to provide accurate and up to date, legal name
and contact information. All registrars of new TLDs should be required to provide
robust WHOIS services and/or to contribute to a centralized, accurate, and robust
WHOIS, openly accessible without cost to the user.
There must be an effective
enforcement process, including ongoing monitoring, for compliance with the above
and with other policies of ICANN. When registers violate ICANN policies, ICANN
must take disciplinary steps, including revoking the accreditation of a registrar
if there is sufficient cause and removing a registry designation if there is sufficient
cause, if it is impossible to correct the problems in a timely manner.
Care
must be taken to protect customers during these periods.
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?
ANSWER: Today, the Internet is shaping a new global
communications and information access medium and supporting a digital economy of
concern to all nations. E-Commerce applications, based on the Internet, have emerged
as a key driver of economic growth in all the developing economies, and offers significant
promise in emerging economies. These applications did not yet exist in the
1980’s. During the 1990’s, in addition to the growing commercial applications
accessed through the Internet, there has been a steady increase in misuses of the
DNS.
Many of these misuses include exploiting the intellectual property
rights of legitimate businesses to create 1) pirated sites where consumers are offered
fraudulent goods; 2) pornographic sites which users access, thinking it is a legitimate
site 3) other direct infringements which draw traffic to a competitor site where
the consumer is offered a competing service or product; and 4) sites where individuals
register the exact or a dilutive form of a legitimate trademark and offer it for
sale. Today, some of these opportunists have come to be called “cybersquatters”.
AT&T believes the protection of intellectual property rights already represents
a balance of the interest of the rights owner and the consuming public. No
society allows unlimited intellectual property rights; and no society denies that
they exist. To ensure the stability of the Internet applications, we believe
that trademark protection must exist. AT&T agrees that property rights must
be 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.
However,
we must recognize that there are significant differences between the 1980’s and today.
The Internet of today is a critical communications and information access medium,
supporting millions of businesses, and millions of individuals users. Users
demand ease of use, findability, security, and performance. They are
intolerant of failure in communications, increasingly expecting “telecom like” quality
of service from what was once a “best efforts” medium.
There are some who believe
that the monopoly situation of the registry process of .com has led to the consumer
fraud issues related to .com. We doubt that is the case. Instead, we believe that
the failure to require accurate and reliable legal name and contact information was
a major issue in enabling the consumer fraud and piracy situations which developed
within .com, .net. and .org. In particular, we believe that requiring accurate
and complete contact information including obtaining the legal name of the registrant
is an important step by ICANN to ensure that those who seek to deal with illegal
uses of trademarks for all infringement purposes, consumer fraud, or piracy have
essential tools at their disposal. This requirement must be included in the
accreditation process for new registries/new registrars.
Q9: To the extent it
is applicable, what are the lessons to be learned from that experience?
ANSWER:
See last paragraph, previous question.
While it may be challenging,
we believe it is useful to examine both the gTLDs, and the ccTLDs who attempt to
restrict who can register. Some ccTLDs have second level categories, and manage those
through the use of human review. As we understand the historical development, although
there was an effort to manage who registered over the years that NSF had direct management,
once NSF handed off to NSI, rapid expansion and registration began, and NSI apparently
concluded that attempting to enforce categorization rules was not worth the effort.
No
thoughtful work has been chartered on this topic, which would seem to be a “first
step”. Such an examination of the “lessons learned” from both gTLDs and ccTLDs
who have implemented categorization can be done in very short time frame, and
does not negate the possible addition of new generics, or chartered TLDs, within
the time frame proposed by ICANN.
We understand the argument that enforcement would
consume resources, perhaps limit some cost cutting processing mechanisms, and possibly
reduce revenues; however, if the goal is to increase the name space and limit unnecessary
and confusing conflicts, enforcement of categorization should be thoughtfully examined
as an option. Consumers and business users are looking for logical means
to find each other and the resources they seek. One of ICANN’s goals should be to
ensure that.
There should also be a mechanism to prevent cybersquatting and other
abuses and to protect the intellectual property rights of legitimate owners,
balanced with the interests of legitimate rights in the registration and holding
of names. For example, the UDRP seems to be working well in the majority of cases
for those who choose to implement it. The UDRP is built on an assumption that recourse
to national law remains an option, and 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.
Increasingly,
it appears that the UDRP is being heavily used. Over 700 cases have been brought.
Close to 300 have been decided. The average time frame for a decision is approximately
45 days. AT&T supports the requirement that all new TLDs should be subject
to the UDRP, but with continuing recourse to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Further, AT&T recommends that in order to offer a stable and reliable environment,
cybersquatting laws should be harmonized throughout the world to provide additional,
reliable remedies for the trademark owners. Such harmonisation is a project
which is the responsibility of WIPO and its member nations; not ICANN.
However, the ICANN board can and should offer its endorsement to such a project
by WIPO and should agree to take up the recommendations forthcoming, through the
usual consultative process followed by ICANN.
Q10: What lessons, if any, can be
learned regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience of the ccTLD registries?
ANSWER:
AT&T registers in many of the ccTLDs; we consider ourselves their customers,
since we do business in most nations and all regions of the world. Some of
our registrations are by nature defensive, but many are undertaken for the purpose
of developing an online presence which is local or national in nature. We have
repeatedly found that all business is local. Customers like to find us on a web site
in a geographical area near them; in short, in their country.
Most of the ccTLD’s
are focused on the sound operation of the name space and while a variety of approaches
have been created, the ccTLDs are now working together to develop a code of best
practices which can lead to a framework of consistency, but reflect any uniqueness
to a particular ccTLD. We applaud that work effort, and propose that
it is important to achieve commonality of concepts to ensure that the ccTLDs remain
useful to global companies and organizations, large and small, seeking to communicate
and do business across national boundaries.
For instance, we believe that
adoption of the ICANN approved UDRP, or, if necessary, working with WIPO to
develop a variation suitable to the ccTLD’s offers a significant enhancement to the
ccTLDs. There are some ccTLD’s who have begun to operate as generics.
In one or two of these, serious complaints have developed about exploitive behaviors
of some who register names, with the sole purpose of reselling them to the trademark
owner of a particular name. We note that this is not the case in all ccTLDs
operating as generics. We are not objecting to cc’s operating as generics,
per se, but we are recommending that there be a policy governing such operations,
and a process to deal with the problems which we just described.
It is important
to note that there has never been any consistency in the limitations, or openness
of ccTLDs. Since the ccTLDs are just organizing and self-developing a framework
which reflects their uniqueness and their commonality, policies must be developed
by, or with very strong participation and input from the ccTLDs themselves, as well
as their GAC representatives. At the same time, we note that as the Internet is a
global medium, we would urge that they include input and consultation with multi-national
corporations who are also their customers and users. We also suggest that participation
by ICANN is also critical.
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: As noted in Answer 10, we believe
it would be useful for the ccTLDs themselves, possibly with participation from
ICANN, to undertake a brief survey of the existing varieties of operations.
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 global business community who are registering in the ccTLDs.
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?
ANSWER: Yes
.
Q13: What steps should be taken to evaluate carefully the initial introduction
of TLDs before future introduction of additional TLDs?
ANSWER: We will provide
a short list of suggestions, which should be considered as non-exhaustive. We are
glad to provide further input if ICANN develops a consultative process to address
this question.
The change in load on the root name servers caused by the
introduction of new TLDs should be assessed.
A short assessment of the
time frame needed to educate ISPs and others, including registrars, about planned
changes is needed.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing accreditation
process for registrars in terms of whether they are sufficiently rigorous to ensure
integrity of operation, security, prevention of domain name hijacking, etc is needed.
ICANN needs norms for good and acceptable practices by registrars, in order to prevent
piracy, deceptive practices, and attempts to run up the ransom value of names.
While the registrars are engaged in developing a “code of conduct”, ICANN has the
responsibility of ensuring that the accreditation process, which is in fact an endorsement
by ICANN, has processes built in to prevent illegal or inappropriate behavior by
those who are accredited by ICANN to act as registrars. This process need not
limit the creation and delegation of new TLDs.
Assessment and survey
of the ccTLD’s experience are necessary, as proposed in questions 10 and 11.
A quick survey of .com, .org, and .net for duplicate registrations could be illuminating,
complete with surveying the duplicate registrants about why they register in all
three. Example: When registering for an ad hoc group operating a voluntary resource,
the registrant was advised to register all three to prevent someone else from registering
in the .coms space and putting up a pornographic site. This particular site was focused
on protecting children online, and in fact, someone did register the .com site, and
did put up a pornographic site, creating so much confusion that the ad hoc group
changed their plan to use the .org name.
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?
ANSWER: Any evaluation will be a resource-intensive
process, and will consume the limited resources of the ICANN staff. Any
action to open additional TLDs beyond those authorized in the initial roll-out should
therefore be delayed until all evaluations of the initial cohort 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?
ANSWER: All new TLDs need to meet minimum
and consistent standards to prevent forum shopping, and confusion for both users
and rights holders. For instance, all registrys/registrars for new TLDs need
to require accurate legal name and contact information from all registrants.
All need to participate in and support a uniform approach to providing WHOIS data,
and support the availability of their data for a universal WHOIS service(s).
It may be tempting to try many different factors in the initial rollout; AT&T
urges caution in the number of variables introduced in the initial introduction of
TLDs. We believe it is better to have a successful first step, than to create confusion
and mistrust of the medium, leading to government intervention or unnecessary user
dissatisfaction.
There is a continuing tension between maximal WHOIS data and
privacy laws in various parts of the world. Privacy laws typically apply differently
to business/commercial data and individuals. The Internet today is primarily
driven by business/commercial registrations/users and has to respond to these commercial
requirements, however, in many ccTLDs, provision is made for second level categories
to support individual registrations. We would estimate that today, by far the
dominant registrations in the .com are businesses and organizations.
And a much smaller percent are consumers who have chosen to have a domain name of
their own.
While we strongly support keeping WHOIS data open, we are cognizant
of the need to make special provision for that last category. The UWHOIS proposal
includes a viable approach to deal with such a category, which should be further
evaluated. It is important to remember that today, ISPs also effectively provide
that kind of “shield” to their users. They maintain and keep private the list
of their subscribers, but when presented with a legitimate court order or law enforcement
contact dealing with a crime, they are able to provide, as appropriate to the laws
of their nation/jurisdiction, the relevant information in a timely and effective
manner.
As the characteristics of those who register domain names change, or if
a TLD were to be considered just for individuals, a process should be developed to
assess what the appropriate level of WHOIS data access would be, i.e., whether an
“opt in” approach would be appropriate, etc. It is important to note that in
the misuse of domain names, including consumer fraud, and exploitation of individuals
online, it is almost always an “individual”, not a company/corporation who is involved.
Clearly, some effective mechanism is needed to enable legitimate efforts to find
and engage when such problems occur, while finding a way to enable the privacy of
individuals . However, today’s WHOIS service is, in our view, predominantly
a business directory,
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?
ANSWER: AT&T urges that the ICANN board ensure that any new
introduction is done in a slow and controlled manner. AT&T would prefer that
no more than 1 new gTLD be introduced; in the initial trial. However, we are
open to considering 1-3. In all cases there must be sufficient safeguards in
place to assess traffic implications on the servers involved, an appropriate consumer
and business educational process, and processes 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.
Based on an effective and thorough consultative process, ICANN should determine and
announce in advance a very small number of new TLDs that it can effectively accommodate
in the initial roll-out, based on these factors.
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?
ANSWER: This question
is so broad that we are not sure what response will be helpful. However, we not agree
that creating financial opportunities for registries or registrars should be a
primary goal of ICANN. Instead, AT&T supports that ICANN’s goal should be creating
logical and, as needed, expansion of the name space, with secure, responsive, effective
services, competitively driven pricing, and choice in services from competitive registrars.
ICANN does have considerable responsibility to oversee the operations of registries,
and to provide an appeals/complaint process for registrars, and users.
It is unclear
that diversity of registry services should be a key driver. If the issue is
diversity in terms of small businesses, minority owned businesses, non U.S. entities,
etc., we suggest that there should be clear guidelines for operating the registries,
and within those guidelines, care can be taken to ensure that such entities apply.
The determination of the award of a registry contract should be based on a careful
evaluation of whether the entity meets the qualifying guidelines.
However, differentiation
and competition in registration services, should be a goal. Since there will be many
more registrars than registries, this is the place to focus any concern about diversity.
A further point which we are concerned about is that AT&T does not support permitting
registries to accredit registrars, nor do we support letting them set separate terms
and conditions for a particular TLD. Such “rules of the road” must be overseen
by ICANN with consultation and agreement by the stakeholders, through an open, public
commentary process, managed by ICANN.
Q19: Would the introduction of additional
undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among Internet users?
ANSWER:
Yes, we believe that confusion will result. AT&T is concerned that undifferentiated
TLDs may result in significant duplication of the name space, representing
new revenue opportunities for the registrars, and for whomever wins the registry
contracts, but doing little to increase the name space in a logical manner.
While
there was no inquiry about the role of directories, AT&T notes that the role of directory
service alternatives is critically important, and timely. The DNS has very poor scaling
properties as a resource locator, partially because there is no concept as a “near
match”. Solutions lie in searching mechanisms or attribute based lookup mechanisms
(variations of directory services).
It could be valuable to understand
the status of emerging directory service alternatives, and how they fit into the
solutions for Internet users, as well as how they might fit into the concept of expansion
of the name space.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account, should one
or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
ANSWER:
We have mentioned the issue of possible significant duplication within the fully
open TLD; however, we are open to the introduction of no more than 1-3 TLDs, with
either one or 2 open, and one chartered; or alternatively, 1 open, and two chartered.
Q21: How many?
ANSWER: 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. We have previously suggested from 1-3, with
effective safeguards and evaluation period. (See Answer to Question 20)
Q22:
How effective would other fully open TLDs be in providing effective competition to
.com?
ANSWER: It is important to remember that trademark owners will have to protect
their rights upon the introduction of new TLDs. If additional TLDs are added
to the root servers, there will be a “gold rush” by intellectual property owners
to register their trademarks as in all TLDs.
For this reason, the introduction
of new gTLDs which are targeted to directly compete with .com may create
somewhat limited new domain name space, due to the duplication with existing names.
Without more analysis, it is impossible to forecast how extensive an overlap
will exist.
Q23: What can be done to maximize the prospect that new fully open
TLDs will be attractive to consumers as alternatives to .com?
ANSWER: We
believe that there is a clear need to “market” a clear set of messages that new names
are being introduced, who will likely register, what the time frames are for availability,
and how to find an entity you are looking for, if you encounter problems.
We would
recommend conducting an extensive earned media campaign which reaches consumers and
business associations around the world asking such associations to promote the change
through their usual mechanisms of informing their members.
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?
ANSWER: This might lessen the load on the .com
servers, by spreading it over additional machines. However, we do not believe
this would increase the space significantly, because those registered in .com
would seek to register in this space as well.
It is also worth noting that single
letter domains and first level subdomains (SLDs) were initially prohibited because
of human factors considerations.
We are opposed to 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?
ANSWER: Most technical
advisors question that the DNS has the capability to serve as an effective resource-location
tool. See Answer to Question 19.
Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted,
undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?
ANSWER: We are concerned about
possible 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?
ANSWER: We are somewhat skeptical
about how charters will be enforced; however, we are open to further discussion of
the role of charters, if the will and ability exists to enforce the restrictions
in TLDS. ICANN should undertake a broad consultation on just this topic, and
the options presented. However, as noted previously, in the long run, we believe
other technological solutions, such as extensive improvements in browsers, search
engines, etc. are solutions for dealing 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?
ANSWER: Yes.
Q30: Do those principles preclude
the introduction of any new fully open TLDs?
ANSWER: Probably.
Q31: What types
of TLDs should be included in the first group of additional TLDs to best test the
concept of chartered TLDs?
ANSWER: See response to Question 20. If
chartered TLDs are introduced, broadly useful terms/names should be chosen, which
are easily understood by consumers, such as .banc; .health. It is not clear that
such names would alleviate conflicts in .com, since most entities would probably
think they need to be registered in both. However, it is possible over time that
the “mapping” of the name space logically would result in specialization within charters.
For instance, if physicians and dentists were primarily registering in .health, and
consumers recognized that was the TLD to find them in, it would be less likely to
find them in .com or .org. Of more importance, ICANN should undertake
more serious examination of the possibilities and how they will be received by consumers
and users.
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 or unlimited expansion
of such space. Initially, a logical framework should be established.
That way, if the number 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 be taken to promote stable and orderly
evolution of the DNS overall?
ANSWER: ICANN should certainly
ensure a stable and orderly evolution of the DNS. 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”. Internet users will be using resources located in all domains.
Q34: Has
the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
ANSWER:
There is significant debate about whether the useful names are exhausted.
If one uses combinations of words, then undoubtedly there are still many, many names
available. If one insists on a singular word, which is easily remembered, then
there are limited words left.
It is possible that the recent announcement
of support of 64 character strings may offer some relief, in conjunction with increased
reliance by users on search engines and browsers. In addition, we believe that
over time, 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.
It could be useful to
have a better understanding of the role of such services, as well as the state of
the art, and the role they can play in the near to mid term future.
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?
AT&T
questions introducing new TLDs which are undifferentiated from the present ones.
We cannot support a process which merely results in increased costs to present domain
name holders for registration in new TLDs, but doesn’t expand the name space effectively.
We will support a process which expands the name space in a slow, controlled manner,
if the issues raised are effectively addressed.
Q.36: Should the formulation of
policies for limited purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In all
cases, or only in some?
ANSWER: No organization should be allowed to develop the
policies for any TLD, restricted or otherwise. Instead, ICANN must develop
a framework for all policy for all TLDs, and 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 all final policies which govern any TLD.
Q. 37. What measures should be employed to encourage or require that the sponsoring
organization is appropriately representative of the TLD’s intended stakeholders?
ANSWER:
ICANN should: (1) require the organization to develop and publish a thorough description
of the planned management, outreach, engagement with the intended stakeholders, etc;
and (2) provide a public comment period.
If the plan is found to be lacking, ICANN
can offer assistance in improving the plan. 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?
ANSWER: See
ANSWER 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?
ANSWER: 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. 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.
ICANN itself must retain the authority to oversee problems as needed, and to remove
the designation, if required.
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.
For example, in the trademark area, the charter should require registrants
to submit to the jurisdiction of this non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism and
also to the jurisdiction of an appropriate court, as is the case with the existing
generics/registrars/registry. If the complaints are about responsiveness, unauthorized
domain name transfers (a version of slamming), there should be a process to enable
evaluation of complaints. 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.
Ultimately, ICANN should remove designation, if
sufficient violations of the policy requirements occur.
New TLDs to Meet
New Types of Needs
Q40: Are there any types of new TLDs that should not be included
in the initial introduction? If any types should be excluded, why?
ANSWER: While
AT&T has not been convinced of the need to add new TLDs, we are interested
in an effective and responsible compromise in order to address the perceived demand
for orderly name space expansion. It is possible that chartered TLDS, if there
are standard guidelines, which are rigorously, applied, and with strong safeguards
for trademark protection, could be a useful approach. However, no work has
been done to analyze the pros and cons, how trademark protection would be implemented;
how charters could be enforced. While registrars might be reluctant to undertake
the step to determine the “fit” to established criteria, it is not impossible to
devise a system. Conflicts or unclear situations could be immediately referred
to UDRP, before allocation. In these instance, the name would be “held”, while
a fast track UDRP is undertaken on determining whether the name should be granted.
We
do not support adding personal TLDs at this time. We will be happy to elaborate
on this view, but essentially, today it still appears that the vast majority of registrations
in the gTLD space are in the business and organization areas. (Statistics vary
for the ccTLDS, we suspect). However, the transition to the widespread
use of domain names by the millions of individual consumers who use email addresses
has not yet begun. There is interest on many fronts in developing such an offering,
and how it might work. If there is an apparent market demand for personal domain
space, whether and how trademarks and other protection for famous names would be
addressed, would need to be considered. In addition, since there are
many individuals with the same, or similar names, as email systems have taught us,
some mechanism for determining how to deal with conflicts and disputes may still
be needed, even in this space. We recommend that any consideration of personal
TLDs be deferred.
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?
ANSWER: Yes. There is significant evidence,
validated during the WIPO project, which documented the kinds of ongoing problems
associated with existing TLDs. Experience in the existing generics strongly suggests
that a new TLD will serve as additional “raw material” 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?
ANSWER: We are not clear what the intent of this question
is. It may be possible to devise a charter where by definition, no commercial
registration is accepted, such as .gov, or .edu as we know them today. However,
that does not alleviate conflicts completely. For instance, there is only one NASA;
the American Red Cross encounters significant efforts by others to use their name,
or variations of their name, often for commercial gain, even though they are registered
as a non-commercial entity. The White House has experienced an unfortunate illustration
of misuse of their name in the .com space, because they registered only the .gov
name.
Non profits, as well as commercial entities protect their names.
For instance, recent news articles have addressed concerns by higher education entities
about misuse of their names. Therefore, we suggest that 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?
ANSWER: 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 IP rights in any new TLDs, including chartered gTLD’s.
The appeal process with respect to both dispute resolution systems also is useful.
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?
ANSWER: The dramatic
growth of business to consumer and business to business E-commerce are clear indications
that 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. This is not
surprising, since a quick historical survey can reaffirm that it takes time for users
to understand their interests in any new area. It is essential to the
stability of the Internet that the ICANN Board gives consideration to the concerns
of the users of the Internet, along with the existing participants in the ICANN process.
While it receives very little discussion or acknowledgement in the ICANN working
groups today, it appears that the predominance of the traffic on the Internet is
still business to business. Business to consumer and consumer to consumer while
growing, is significantly less. This is not to discount consumer to consumer
transactions. But, it is important to keep in mind that projections of volumes
of traffic on the Net through 2005 remain proportionately higher for business to
business communications, in all regions of the world.
With that in mind, the ICANN
board must give careful thought to whether they have indeed gained sufficient input
from the commercial user community on the kinds of changes they anticipate. This
is fact, seems to be proving more difficult than engaging individuals as interested
parties. However, because it is these entities who are building the economic growth
and value in various nations, generating jobs, and using the Internet to reach new
markets, their views and interests are and must be of key concern.
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?
ANSWER: We support a slow,
manageable, structured, and equitable approach to the launching of 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.
Further, we believe that an effective awareness campaign is needed to build awareness
of the availability of a new domain.
In the commercial and organizational areas,
affordability and ease of use are key factors in obtaining registrations.
In
the area of individual registrations (of individual names), domain names are not
yet as accessible to individuals today as are email addresses, and many individuals
have not yet seen the benefit of seeking their own domain name, paying to have the
DNS hosted, and then overseeing it in some way.
It is possible that such
market demand will grow. However, for the foreseeable future, it appears that
registrations by entities, businesses, organizations, individuals holding themselves
out to communicate with the public, politicians, government agencies, etc. will continue
to dominate the number of registrations.
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?
ANSWER: We have supported the concept of developing
an agreed upon definition of globally famous trademarks which could be agreed to
via the internationally inclusive forum of WIPO. Such a list will not be easy
to agree upon, but there is significant work already underway at the Standing Committee
at WIPO. We believe the list will be necessarily limited in numbers,
and potentially quite restrictive since there should be criteria that a mark is recognized
in multiple regions (perhaps 3 of the 5 ICANN recognized regions), and multiple nations
within these regions.
While it is not possible to implement such a list at this
time, we believe that WIPO should be encouraged to continue to work in this area,
and that it may be feasible in the future to reach agreement on a list of globally
famous trademarks which could be excluded from registration, except by the trademark
owners.
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?
ANSWER: Yes, introduction of new TLDs should await
complete evaluation’s input of the ICANN UDRP. Evaluation of the ICANN UDRP can be
a “fast track” project, involving WIPO in developing of a report which is based on
a factual analysis. We believe that chartering the work effort, if it is possible
to rely on WIPO resources, among others, could be accomplished by late fall, 2000.
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: The response here will depend on whether
chartered TLDs are introduced. However, we would note that famous and well-known
marks are likely to have conflicts in chartered as well as open TLDs. A revision
to the ICANN UDRP will probably require a few months of 1) analysis, 2) drafting,
3) initial comment period, 4) redrafting, and publishing for review and acceptance.
A “fast track” process would require an immediate launch of the work effort following
the ICANN July Board meeting to identify expert participants, define a process, and
undertake the relevant work effort, including consultation.
Q. 49: Does the schedule
allow sufficient time for formulation of proposals?
ANSWER: No. AT&T is concerned
with the time frames as proposed. We understand that ICANN has gained a certain amount
of experience in resolving complex problems in short time periods, however, we note
that in this case consultation with businesses as users is essential to ensure support
in this will require a more extensive consultative period.
Suggested Schedule
for the Introduction of New TLDs
Q50: Does the schedule allow sufficient time for
public comment?
ANSWER: Absolutely not. The comment period should be at
least four weeks in length. Effective and useful public comment cannot be provided
in a one week 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?
ANSWER: 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 4 weeks.
Q52: Should
the formal applications be posted in full for public comment? If not, which parts
of the applications should remain private?
ANSWER: 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.
ANSWER:
AT&T does not support the idea that individual entities self select the new gTLDs.
In any case, any proposal to operate a new TLD should be singular.
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?
ANSWER: AT&T recommends that ICANN develop a
process to select the list of new TLD labels. ICANN should engage in a consultative
process, independent of the proposals for domains and registries selection, 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?
ANSWER: ICANN should
seek to prevent conflict or confusion; no two letter _top level _ generic domains
should be allocated (in order to prevent conflicts with future expansion of
3166 space). .
Q.56: Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels
that are established: for example a prohibition of country codes?
ANSWER: Yes,
see ANSWER 55, above.
Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting between potential
TLD labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
ANSWER:
ICANN is immediately focused on the work needed to deal with the issues of English
language TLDs.
We are not competing 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. It is also not clear
yet how best to deal with “non-English” names in the areas of interoperability.
We
note that the IETF is working hard on developing mechanisms for handling non-Latin
alphabets n the DNS; it is an extremely complex task, and it is important that any
new TLDs not prejudge the outcome of this work.
Q58: How many new
TLDs of each type should be included in the initial introduction?
ANSWER:
We
are concerned that there be a slow, controlled, and responsible expansion of the
name space, with protection for trademarks and for dealing with stability issues
and technical concerns. Under those circumstances, 1-3 new gTLDs could be introduced,
with 1 or 2 open and 1 chartered, or 1 open, and 2 chartered.
Q59: Which types
of TLDs will best serve the DNS?
ANSWER: Until an evaluation of the success
and experience with the initial set of gTLDs takes place, it is difficult to predict.
Q61: Which types, if any, are essential to the successful testing period?
ANSWER:
At least one open and one chartered. (However, see answer 58.)
Q62: Which other
structural factors, if any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential success
of a specific TLD proposal?
ANSWER: We have responded to this question in earlier
responses.
In addition, all TLD applicants should specify how they will:
(1) ensure
collection and maintenance of accurate registrant contact details;
(2) support
provision of unfettered and robust centralized WHOIS access to the public via the
Internet on a 24 hour-per-day/7 day-per-week basis, without cost to the user;
(3) participate
in an equitable and efficient dispute resolution procedure authorized by ICANN; and
(4) cooperate
with ICANN compliance mechanisms.
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?
ANSWER: 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&T 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
legal 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; however, ICANN should
ensure that “reasonable” includes a reflection of the volume of names provided.
(3) Dispute Resolution Policy. The existing ICANN UDRP process should provide
the basis for 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) Compliance with technical requirements
established by ICANN.
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?
ANSWER: 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?
ANSWER: ICANN should develop a set of
criteria to ensure that they have complete disclosure about the names and credentials,
and backgrounds of the officers and employees.
Q69: What should be
the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient stability and interoperability?
ANSWER:.
The registry and operator of any TLD should meet the same standards for robustness,
distribution, and security, that ICANN expects from the operators of the root servers.
There must be a sufficient number of servers, with sufficiently diverse connectivity
that there is no risk of significant down time. A robust system must ensure
that the only condition in which all servers become inaccessible from all sources
simultaneously would involve the complete collapse of the network.
Update
and transfer authentication must be built into the minimal functionality requirements
of the system, to prevent hijacking, accidental errors, etc.
Similar
requirements should exist for WHOIS, and for a universal WHOIS, as well.
For example, an organization proposing to “operate” a new TLD will need several
things:
A set of name servers
A registry where data on all
names and name owners in the TLD is made publicly available (a WHOIS system)
A set of internal systems to support the business operations of the organization
A set of processes for normal operation of the above and associated performance and
availability goals
A set of processes to handle problems with associated
response time goals
Name service must be available 24x7 with no exceptions.
It must be offered from multiple, widely separated physical locations.
The individual name server sites should have backup power and preferably have connections
to at least two different ISPs with diverse access arrangements.
The WHOIS system
has similar requirements, though the required level of availability is not as high
as for the name servers. In this case multiple physical sites are desirable,
but one site with backup power and diverse access is acceptable (a 4 hour WHOIS outage
is a possibly serious annoyance; a 15 minute total outage for name service for a
TLD could be a major disaster). Overall, there should be provision for an unfettered,
robust, free public access to WHOIS over the Internet on a 24 hour/7 day-per-week
basis.
The internal systems should be secure. ICANN should not need to worry
about them except to be sure that they are consistent with the reliability
and availability goals of the name servers and WHOIS system.
The normal operations
processes should be reviewed by a set of experts appointed by ICANN. They should
include the target reliability and availability numbers for the systems and for the
overall service offered by the organization.
The emergency procedures should also
be reviewed. They should include the processes to be followed when critical
hardware fails, but they should also include processes to be followed when human
error results in deletion of a domain name (e.g. if xyz.abc is mistakenly deleted
from the name service, what is the procedure to be followed to get it back and how
long does that process take once the problem has been brought to the registry’s attention?).
A
critical part of the process descriptions is the security and authentication plan.
The organization should spell out how it will ensure that requests for changes actually
come from the owner of the domain. This applies to normal requests and to emergencies.
The security plan should also address the physical and technical security of the
equipment used in providing services.
The performance, reliability, and availability
goals should be backed up by a set of measurement tools to provide data on how well
the goals are being met over time. There should be a plan to review this data
periodically and improve performance over time.
Information About the Policies
and Procedures Applicable to the TLD
Q72: In what ways should the application
requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ from those for open TLDs?
ANSWER:
It is not clear at this point that there should be significant differences.
If the view is that a chartered TLD might have significant scale differences, then
adjustments can be made to the overall requirements.
Q. 73: Should ICANN
require a statement of policy or should a statement of how policies will be made
sufficient?
ANSWER: In any consideration of new TLDs of any kind, ICANN should
require a statement of policy so that they can evaluate the proposal thoroughly.
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?
ANSWER: It
is important to remember that these entities are essentially franchises” of ICANN,
and should have criteria to meet in their operations. Further, ICANN should
be providing the basic framework for policies. A high degree of openness, transparency,
and representativeness in policy making is essential, including ensuring that outreach
for comments includes the full range of affected users. In addition, ICANN should
reserve the right, contractually, through the accreditation process, to discontinue
authority, based on sufficient violations/complaints.