Sunday, July 09, 2000ICANN
For consideration in ICANN Yokohama Meeting
Topic:
Introduction of new Top Level Domains
Response to posted questions:
Q1: In
order to not disrupt current operations or create competing root systems, ICANN should
create working group to facilitate with the IETF and IAB to deal directly with Internet
protocols and standards. This group would be made up of members from each organization,
working together to promote goodwill and effective Internet architecture. For
the introduction of new TLD's, this working group should ensure that the concerns
of their organizations are addressed properly before such introduction physically
occurs.
Q2: The main issues are the large amount of domains issued in the early
phases of rollout, trademark issues, and ownership requirements.
Q3: These concerns
con only be eliminated or reduced over time and adjusting a learning curve.
Q4:
These concerns will be exponentially magnified by the introduction of many TLDs at
once.
Q5: No, there are no practical means of reversing the introduction, however
of course, it is possible by refunding the fees and deleting the architecture from
the DNS.
Q6: It is feasible, but not practicable. I highly suggest this
route does not occur.
Q7: For the proposed TLD, not to compete against other TLDs
and ensure stability, these TLDs should only be used for infrastructure purposes
and not commercial usage such as the '.com' and the like. The organizations
should be the ones involved in the infrastructure directly or contractors thereof.
Q8:
The previous introductions gave us a benchmark and a portion of our learning curve.
Today, we need to think about the future of the Internet and how we can make it better.
Using past experience and mistakes, we can do better in the future.
Q9: With any
new industry, you will experience problems that have never and will never again occur,
some of these may be the beginning growth curve, and the '.com hysteria'. These
can only be described in detail by writing a book. For these purposes, we've
learned that 1) we can't let the governments themselves regulate this industry to
any extent, it must be handled by an independent authority. 2) commercialization
will occur at the rate of demand, and grow at a proportionate rate until, of course
with a standard business cycle, the demand rate declines and proportions stay relative
due to elasticity of the market. 3) we can't let individual corporations influence
the outcome of Internet policy.
Q10: N/A
Q11: N/A
Q12: Yes, the introduction
of new gTLDs should be limited to the highest extent possible. These TLDs can
always be introduced at a later time, but undoing a mistake is much harder.
Q13:
It needs to be a consensus among the members of ICANN based on a fiduciary relationship
to the users. This consensus should be drawn by testimony and common vote,
just as is being experimented with now.
Q14: The amount time should be a variable,
determined beforehand. Proper notice (6months) to hear testimony within the
given timeline.
Q15: Proper considerations of feasibility during the evaluations
should be set beforehand.
Q16: Nothing should be 'set in stone' until proper evaluations
can be made. Any proposals should be well founded and fiduciary to the users
based on infrastructure needs and requirements.
Q17: NO. Enhancing competition
shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be the users and infrastructure.
Q18:
NO. Enhancing competition of vendors shouldn't be the issue. The issue should
be the users and infrastructure.
Q19: YES. In every facet. The initial
purposes of those distinctions have been blurred by blurred by lack of relevance
and competition in the markets.
Q20: NO. Enough TLDs are issued to this
point. .
Q21: NO MORE than 1 at absolute most at any one time, except ccTLDs
by established guidelines.
Q22: Enhancing competition shouldn't be the issue.
The issue should be the users and infrastructure.
Q23: I don't think this issue
should even be a consideration.
Q24: NO. IANA should keep these in inventory
for future use. No new registries should be started at this time.
Q25: NO.
This can be done commercially, and not regulated. TLDs specifically developed
for this purpose is not in the best interest of ICANN.
Q26: NO. It wouldn't
counter this goal, but it would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
Q27: Again, enhancing competition
shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be the users and infrastructure.
Q28:
It could be helpful in the future, but at this point, it would be counterproductive.
Q29:
YES. These are good guidelines.
Q30: NO.
Q31: They should be introduced
as NEEDED, and not as capitalism proposes.
Q32: They should be defined as required.
Q33:
YES.
Q34: NO. The aftermarket has plenty of supply left for this lifetime.
Q35: They SHOULD BE differentiated, in whatever their purpose allows.
Q36:
NO. In no circumstance other than ICANN's lack of responsibility in a needed circumstance.
Q37:
They should be independent from their shareholders, much like utilities were at the
inception of their respective industries.
Q38: There needs to be a way of monitoring
through ICANN.
Q39: ICANN should be able to seize control through the center of
control, but only in a peaceful and responsible manner.
Q40: Exclude any domains
that directly compete with existing TLDs
Q41: YES.
Q42: YES.
Q43: If the
UDRP is to enforce any remedies, any concerns over regulations need to be addressed
first, along with court proceedings.
Q44: YES. More difficulties than we
can thus far foresee.
Q45: These regulations need more forethought than these
proceedings can accurately address.
Q46: Possibilities may be appropriate in the
future, but to this point trademark laws are still being tried in court.
Q47:
YES. INDEFINITELY. This matter should be concentrated on before the present
proceedings continue.
Q48: YES. INDEFINITELY. This matter should be
concentrated on before the present proceedings continue.
Q49: YES.
Q50: YES.
Q51:
I recommend that they all be posted simultaneously at the deadline date, not before.
Then, open for public comment.
Q52: PRIVATE. To members only. The
biggest mistake in the past century was opening up the courts to media scrutiny the
same effects would take place in today's society.
Q53: Many possibilities should
be suggested, but only one solution should be implemented.
Q54: Consultative project
between applicant and ICANN.
Q55: N/A
Q56: YES. 1) no country codes,
2) no governmental restrictions, 3) nothing based on competition, 4) nothing based
on lack of competition.
Q57: No TLD type should be favored. The criteria
should be based on criteria set by ICANN during the process.
Q58: No more than
one of each type, unless otherwise specified by ICANN.
Q59: Only TLDs that serve
the Internet infrastructure.
Q60: YES. See Q56
Q61: All types are essential
to the successful testing period.
Q62: ONLY owners of existing TLD's should have
direct control over second level (and additional) and subdomains.
Q63: YES.
Q64:
ICANN can either augment the taskforce or consider aptitude of the prospects.
Q65:
By all listed criteria and any other necessary.
Q66: Variable.
Q67: YES.
Those that are congruent to the purposes of the Internet.
Q68: 1) no direct investment
from ICANN, 2) other alternative measures.
Q69: All listed criteria and any other
necessary.
Q70: This matter should be concentrated on before the present proceedings
continue.
Q71: As any role would dictate for the assurance of Internet stability.
Q72:
N/A
Q73: Either one that would be made in a responsible manner.
Q74: Maximum
transparency and representativeness.
Posted by:
Randy Glass
Member at-large
RJPacific.com