[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[council] NC meeting May 17
1. Please add to the agenda for the NC
teleconference:
"WG C Final recommendation"
2. And then I would like to bring NC
attention to the following:
Council,
In the NC statement on new gTLDs we made
the reference:
"Recognizing the Working Group C has recently approved
additional principles
and that Working Group B's formal report was provided
to us yesterday, we
advise the Board that we will be providing supplemental
recommendations in
the near future. "
Working group C
considered a set of proposals based on an original draft
submitted by myself
and Kathy Kleiman. The principles are broad criteria
for choosing new
TLDs. (Specific guidelines based on them will need to be
worked out in due
course - they are a starting point.) They try to
encapsulate the concepts of
fairness, competition and diversity that
underline many of the more specific
options debated in the working groups.
WG C voted on these and achieved a
consensus in support. I would therefore
like to propose the following
statement is endorsed by the NC and sent to
the ICANN Board as supplemental
recommendations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNSO
Names Council Supplemental Statement on new TLDs
Further to its
preliminary statement, the Names Council recommends to the
ICANN Board that
it adopt criteria for assessing a TLD application or
proposal.
These
criteria subject to current technical constraints and evolving
technical
opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles:
1.
Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of
the
proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new
TLD
will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The
application
may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its
primary semantic
meaning in a language other than English.
2.
Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism
for
charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
3.
Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net
users,
and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
the
marketing and functionality associated with the string.
4. Diversity: New
TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
Internet
community. They should serve both commercial and
non-commercial
goals.
5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily
increase opportunities for
malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud
net users.
6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should
not be used
as a means of protecting existing service providers from
competition.
--------------------------------------------------------