[council] Comments from gTLD Constituency on Current gTLD Committee draft

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us>]

All,

 

     The gTLD Constituency would like to first thank Philip Sheppard for taking the lead on drafting this initial paper.  We will be submitting a separate statement on the subject of new gTLDs in the next few days, but we wanted to provide some constructive feedback on the March 7th gTLD Committee Report (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030307.gTLDs-committee.html).  More specifically, this note addresses the Section entitled "Points of Common Agreement and Points for Future Debate."  Our comments will correspond to the numbered points contained within that specific section.

 

Goals of Expanding the Name Space. 

 

Numbers 2 and 5:  The gTLD Constituency supports the goals that are set forth in this section.  Our only comment relates to numbers 2 and 5.  We note that with respect to IDN generic top-level domains (i.e., IDN.IDN), ICANN should try to ensure that the ASCII translation of any new generic IDN top-level should not be confusingly similar an already existing generic ASCII top-level domain (also known as transliterations of existing names) so as to confuse net users. 

 

Drivers of Expansion.

 

Number 6:  The gTLD Constituency believes that this section as currently worded is ambiguous.  What does it mean is meant by "Demand-driven?"   Does this mean that a potential applicant needs to demonstrate to the ICANN that there is already existing demand for the space?  Who "judges" whether there is demand for a particular new gTLD -- Is it the ICANN Board, Staff, or the GNSO?  Do any of these parties have the expertise to make such determinations?  Also, doesn't the fact that someone applies to manage the new gTLD namespace demonstrate in and of itself that demand exists for the new name space?  If there is an applicant willing to invest in the space and take on the risks associated with introducing a namespace, should that not be enough?  In addition, is it not possible to have an applicant propose to create demand by investing in its registry?

 

 Number 7:  We are in agreement with the first two clauses, but we would like more clarification on what is meant by the following sentence:  "However, in order to meet the goal on competition, this flexibility will need to be limited to the extent that it might lead to barriers to entry."

Number 8 - Some members of the Constituency felt that we should avoid using the words "sponsored" in any of these recommendations.  Using such words may imply that ICANN will only be able to introduce "sponsored" TLDs in the future.  The committee may wish to use the words "To the extent that a TLD is sponsored..."

Technical and Financial Qualification

Number 9:  The gTLD Constituency believes that stating that all registries be required to "demonstrate financial competence" is fraught with ambiguity.  What exactly does that mean?  How can this be determined objectively and who makes those determinations?  Financial competence may need to be applied using a sliding scale (if it is indeed objectively evaluated).  For example, an applicant may be financially competent to operate a smaller TLD, but may not be for a larger-scale TLD.  Alternatively, financial competence may also be measured in light of the specific business model proposed. 

 Number 10:  First, the gTLD Constituency believes that the committee should avoid using the word "bid" since such term implies that ICANN will be using an auction process.  Perhaps it should use the term "application fee."  Second, the cost of an "application" depends on a number of unknown factors (other than purely " actual administrative costs")and therefore, this statement may be too general.  

Registry/sponsor failure

Number 11:  This statement seems ambiguous.  Is the committee implying that each new gTLD should have an escrow capability or is it implying that there should be other mechanisms employed.  How far does ICANN need to go to protect "investments" made by registrants if a registry fails?  If a TLD is unsuccessful, should ICANN have an obligation to protect all of those registrants?  Is the Committee expecting that other registries will take over for the failing registry (or failing sponsor)?  If so, is this really economically viable for existing registries?  In addition, one needs to consider the different protocols used by the different registries (even different versions of the same protocols).  Moreover, if the sponsor fails, is it really feasible to assume that another registry (or even another sponsor) would be qualified to assume control of the failing registry.   

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency

DISCLAIMER:  The opinions expressed herein represent the views of the gTLD Constituency and do not necessarily represent the views of NeuLevel, Inc.