RE: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Title: Message

I concur with Jordyn's analysis below of the question from the ICANN Board.

 

I think the question was quite narrowly framed.

Either let the market choose names, or use a structure:

e.g 7 deadly sins (sloth, greed etc), 7 dwarfs, 26 (one for each letter in the alphabet etc), some sort of ISO table (in addition to the country code table), olympic sports as chosen by the IOC

 

We of course can initiate our own separate policy development process on any element of new TLD policy.  This should be done via generating an issues report and following the GNSO policy development process described in:

http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA

 

Regards,

Bruce

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 3:04 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; Council (list); Denise Michel
Subject: RE: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003

Philip:

 

You are confusing two questions.  The underlying question that must be answered is "what did the board mean by their use of the word 'structure'"?  Having determined that, I agree wholeheartedly that the Names Council has full authority to

 

As I indicated on the last call, I believe that the Board has asked quite a narrow question of us.  I think there was some agreement on the call that the board meant "structure" in the context of Stuart's paper on gTLD expansion.  Here, then, is the relevant excerpt:

 

---------------------------------------

Since well before ICANN's new TLD process in 2000, there has been discussion about the best way to address the semantic element of new TLD creation.

Some have argued that the best approach is to allow each would-be TLD registry operator to select which new TLD string(s) it wishes to operate (on the basis of its own analysis, market research and/or reference to the intended community to be served), with little or no editorial role for ICANN in selecting new TLD proposals. This is the approach ICANN took in 2000: each proposer was asked to specify the TLD string(s) it wanted, including an explanation of its rationale and, for sponsored TLD proposals, the relationship of the string to the intended community to be served and to any restrictions or limitations on registration.

Others have argued that the ICANN community should undertake to "rationalize" the new TLD space according to a defined taxonomy of names. This is the approach that was taken when the Domain Name System was first designed and deployed in the mid-1980s. [See RFC 1034, RFC 1035, RFC 1591]. RFC 1591 documented post-hoc the initial taxonomy decisions, which established seven three-letter "generic" top-level domains (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT) and an expandable number of "country-code" top-level domains, drawn from the ISO 3166-1 table. In other words, the initial architects of the DNS made a collective judgment about the best taxonomic structure for the DNS, which the IANA then implemented by identifying registry operators for each generic and country-code TLD and delegating registry authority, according to the policies documented in RFC 1591.

There are any number of pros and cons to each of these approaches:

• The laissez-faire approach puts responsibility for TLD string selection in the hands of those who are arguably in the best position to make market-driven or community-driven judgments – the potential registry operators. For example, the proposer of .museum was arguably in the best position to determine which particular string of letters would be most acceptable to the global community of museums, which spans a vast range of cultures and languages.
  • On the other hand, the laissez-faire approach may result in a DNS that is confused and confusing, undermining the basic objective that domain names should be easy-to-remember pointers to the IP addresses that identify nodes, services, and links on the Internet.
• The taxonomic approach would allow the broad community of ICANN stakeholders the ability to participate in designing a rational and comprehensive set of available TLD strings, with the objective of articulating a system with the greatest utility for all Internet users. This approach would be arguably most likely to result in a coherent system of easy-to-remember TLD strings that make sense to users.
  • On the other hand, the taxonomic approach would require ICANN to undertake the doubtless difficult, contentious, and time-consuming process of creating a global consensus around a particular list of TLD strings. It could interpose that process between now and the start of ICANN's next round of new TLDs selection.

Paragraph II.C 8 of the Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce signed in September, 2002 states that ICANN should "Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of . . . (b) The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions." The need to understand how the top level TLD namespace should be expanded is indeed a prerequisite to defining such "selection criteria".

Recommendation: As ICANN proceeds with its new TLD evaluation process  – and, if the Board concurs, with an additional round of new sponsored TLDs – this basic question of taxonomic rationalization should be addressed within the ICANN process. Accordingly, it is my recommendation to the ICANN Board that the DNSO and its Names Council be requested to develop and submit its advice and guidance on the issue.

-----------------

 

As you can see, in this context, the question of structure is purely a taxonomic one, essentially posing the question "should the list of available gTLD strings be set in advance or established by new gTLD applicants" and is explicitly distinct from selection criteria and process.

 

If we are to diverge from this interpretation, I think the onus is to clearly enunciate both the new definition of structure that we are using for the purpose of our inquiry AND the reasons why we are diverging from the interpretation laid out above.

 

Jordyn

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:40 AM
To: Council (list); Denise Michel
Subject: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003

Jordyn,

you correctly identify a key question facing the committee. It is certainly our job to define and describe a structure that we support. This is not a task for the staff. In essence it is the question the Board has rightly deferred to the GNSO to answer.  Let the proposal flow!

Philip