Comments on Proposals for New Top Level DomainsBritish Telecommunications plc
notes that:
� Given that assignment of generic and country code Top Level Domains
has been passed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and
�
Given that the responsibility for ensuring a stable framework for the existing and
future primary domains is paramount.
and supports the ICANN decision that extensions
of the current framework should take place in a well-controlled manner. Furthermore
we recommend that :-
� ICANN should establish a clear policy on dealing with any
pre-emption, requested extensions from private domains to the Root Server system
or reservations that seek to avoid the procedures created for this purpose.
�
ICANN should also consider carefully the benefit arising from each proposal for the
users of the Internet and not only the volume of support which a proposal has generated.
Furthermore we recommend that ICANN should:
1) Establish a Classification Framework
for existing and future Top Level Domains
ICANN should seek to enhance the public
benefit by ensuring improved ease of access through an appropriate semantic framework
for domains as recommended by the Business & Commercial constituency of the DNSO,
in the excerpt from their paper below:
'The BC believes that a possible long-term
solution is to extend the classification role of gTLDs to their logical conclusion.
One option is to create a large set of gTLDs to reflect the needs of the consumer.
Thus, for example, the following three commercial and one non-commercial options
could all co-exist: Lotus.software Lotus.cars Lotus.paper Lotus.flowers
Such a
system has wide-ranging benefits:
� A browser search would be more likely to turn
up relevant options.
� There would be little purpose in defensive ownership of
unwanted sites.
� Each new gTLD would have uniqueness and its added value would
enhance competition.
A process to identify possible new names should be
evaluated by a gTLD panel established by the ICANN Board under the auspices of the
DNSO Names Council'
2) Limit Assignments and Reservations
� Proposers
submitting multiple applications or single applications with multiple proposals should
identify which single proposal they wish to be considered.
� New domains should
be assigned to new TLD operators with the positive aim of re-balancing the current
geographical distribution of registry locations.
� Operators of unauthorised
TLDs or those pre-selling registrations before assignment should not receive preferential
consideration.
� Each successful proposer should be assigned no more than one
domain at this time.
3) Defining the Scope of the Assignment
There
should be a clear statement from ICANN of the scope of the assignment to avoid confusion
between domains, such as .air being used for air transport or radio communications
industries.
4) Differentiation Between Top Level Domains
New domains should not
merely duplicate existing assignments under a synonymous generic label, which would
merely confuse Internet users, but add value by differentiating its scope and target
registrants. Registry operations should be unique not-for-profit services within
each domain, competition being established at the registrar level.
5) Require
the inclusion of the following Registry Policy Requirements:
� to accept the legal
principles covering the intellectual property, trade marks and brand names for registrations
within their domain(s) in all jurisdictions in which they take registrations;
�
to verify that applications for domain names do not infringe the rights of holders
of intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of existing entities,
whether commercial, non-commercial or individual;
� to reject bulk registrations
and pre-emptive registrations which seek to create an opportunity for speculative
resale of domain names;
� to proscribe the reselling or auction of domain names
through the assignment policies;
� to provide, in advance, protective registrations
for domain names that are the intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of
existing businesses, at cost;
� to provide for a structured semantic sub-domain
that enables ease of access to specific content areas. Without such an approach any
new domain will sustain the risks of exhaustion and also protective registrations
that has been quoted as limiting further registrations in the.com domain.
� to
adopt the policies recommended by ICANN based on the WIPO report;
� to resolve
any infringement of trademark, cyber-squatting and warehousing through the recommended
UDRP;
� to proscribe the use of any domain for abusive or denigratory purposes
subject to immediate suspension and withdrawal of the assignment;
� to require
operators of the new TLDs to disclose sufficient information on the registrants that
contending applicants can contact those registrants to resolve domain name rights
issues. This disclosure is subject to various national laws affecting data privacy,
but applicable conditions should not permit registrants to opt-out of identification
and avoid resolution of Domain Name ownership;
� to provide free access to Whois
facilities as part of the service for registrants seeking to confirm the availability
or registration of given domain names;
� for Registry operators to provide registrars
with facilities to discourage potential infringement of existing Domain Name holders,
including providing information when the same second-level domain name is already
in use in another TLD;
� for Registry operators to be required to flag applications
when there is a risk of homonyms arising which may create confusion with other registrants'
names.
6) Support for Proposals:
6.1 ICANN should assign the new TLDs to proposers'
whose applications provide the greatest scope for the rapid extension of the Internet
to the public at large. For example, by enabling access through proposals including
existing addressing systems such as telephony numbering. This will also meet the
requirements for expanding competition, as there are multiple service providers in
such industries.