[council] FYI: ISPCP statement on new TLDs

[Michael Schneider <sastre@anwalt.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Members,

I will forward the attached ISPC statement on the TLD Application
Review later to ICANN's "Forum on New TLD Applications". However, I
should like to take this opportunity to raise some of the aspects of
the current review process which I personally (in my capacity as
member of the Names Council, and not as chairman of a constituency)
believe are important and would very much like to see considered in
subsequent discussion, but do not wish to make an issue of public
comment.

A. Noone will be surprised if I note that the NC should play a much
more active role in this process and should submit a recommendation to
the Board before its decision. According to my reading of the Bylaws
(which I shall continue to return to), this is an issue which is core
business of DNSO and the NC.

B. I am somewhat concerned about the process for choosing between
applicants. Although Louis presented a very sensible and
comprehensible view at the last NC conference call on how to handle
multiple TLD strings submitted by a given applicant, there is much to
suggest that at the end of the day there will be several players
competing for the same string. I feel it is not only dubious but even
risky to make a choice then on the basis of "soft" criteria such as
the presumed reliability or capability of an applicant without
refunding the application fees to the others.

C. A similar problem could arise if the Board concluded that a number
of applications were viable but nevertheless sought to limit the
number of TLDs allowed in the first round (which the ISPCP continues
to recommend).

D. In choosing between proposed strings, consideration could and
should be given to aspects which are not related to the mission of
ICANN but go beyond these. To give an example by way of illustration,
proposals include the TLDs ".xxx" as well as ".kids". The question
whether to channel content on the Web by creating enclaves for either
harmful content or certain user groups (children and young people) has
been a subject of intensive debate for some time. I have myself
participated closely in this debate in connection with projects like
ICRA (the Internet Content Rating Association) and INHOPE (the
European association of so-called "hotlines"). There are various camps
involved here representing very different approaches, none directly
connected with the DNS (some argue that a TLD like ".xxx" concentrates
harmful content and removes the burden from the rest of the Internet,
while others ­ including myself ­ feel it is more appropriate to
create a chartered name space for content suitable for minors). A
simplistic approach to this problem would not do justice to the
communities intensively involved with such issues.

I am naturally aware that we do not live in an ideal world in which it
is possible to identify every aspect of importance for a decision, to
hear all those who might be affected by a decision, and to commission
an expert opinion on every individual question before arriving at a
conclusion. Even so, I believe that the above comments, along with the
official ISPC statement, are important enough to merit careful
consideration.

Best regards,
Michael Schneider

============================== CUT HERE ==============================

ISPC comments on the proposals for new Top level Domains

The ISPC fully supports ICANN in its efforts to ensure that the
stability and reliability of the Internet is not challenged through
the addition of new generic Top level Domains. As stated previously
this principle is considered to be of paramount importance to the
ISPC.

Against that background ICANN is urged to adopt a stable framework
against which their evaluation of the applications can take place in a
coherent manner. Whilst the constituency does not see it is their role
to offer comment on individual applications, in an effort to assist in
advancing the very difficult task facing ICANN it would like to
suggest some top level principles which would assist.

1. In keeping with the earlier debates and conclusions drawn,
regardless of the number of applications received as few as possible
gTLDs should be introduced this time around.
2. Every effort must be made to substantiate that all new Registries
involved in the domain name space are viable. If any level of doubt
exists, ICANN should not consider the matter further without concrete
evidence to dispel those concerns.
3. Within all new domains Registry functions should be undertaken on a
'not for profit' basis, whilst competition within the Registrar
function is viewed as a key requirement
4. Public benefit must be a prime consideration and this lends itself
to the development of a framework which would classify the new gTLD
space into categories, under which different entities could then sit
e.g. garages, car sales, car repairs etc could all exist under .car.
As well as aiding public understanding, this approach would also
greatly assist browser functionality.
5. In the initial phase, with a limited number of gTLDs being
introduced, no organisation should be considered for the delegation of
more than one gTLD.
6. The full scope of each assignment should be clearly articulated in
order to avoid subsequent confusion and infringement.
7. In advance of any new domain name registrations, clear guidelines
should be developed regarding the registration of second level
domains.
8. Applications should be assessed against a benchmark test of
expanding the growth of the Internet for the overall good of the
community.
9. No preferential treatment should be given to any applicant who has
been involved in pre-registration activities. On the contrary such
activities should be frowned upon as an act of bad faith as this
clearly went against ICANN advice.

In addition to the above points the ISPC also endorses the joint
statement made by the Business and Intellectual Property
Constituencies covering registrar and registration procedures, UDRP
and the WHOIS database.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2i

iQCVAwUBOgXMl9pXDbCm/IIRAQGu2QQApZkJ+lZR1Bp0PMAiQTpN18/SCxKWY52p
Zc16jfZ0X3xjG6Egd/IjidT90RqmdAHW4B4OVTazWYHhix+Bv59iIjoK2dq3mBJO
5RKxPDxjjDs+vkqICpenjwIwaT3J6RkMbKbZCelIlAwlOAGunAsftK0NESiStswy
7ZKvydNf64c=
=uwRj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----