Re: [council] New compromise text - gTLDs

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

First of all, thanks, Bruce and Philip, for separating
recommendations and "food for thought" (and policy-making) much more
clearly in the versions of the report which were just circulated.

Together with the approach suggested by Bruce, this separation
appears to resolve our procedural concerns.

By the same token, if the Committee is truly offering a range of
possible criteria arising from its discussions, that summary should
reflect the diversity of opinion on many of the objectives
addressed. In many cases, we and others have proposed caveats or
modifications to these criteria, that we'd also like to see
reflected in the summary to the Board.


A few comments on the individual edits from the ALAC's point of
view; criteria are numberd as in v4 of the report:

Criteria 1 and 6 make most sense when used as general principles and
objectives which apply to the *entire* process; we would support
striking both from the list of possible criteria.  If 6 remains in
the report, we'd ask that our earlier comment that "individual
prospective names should not be scrutinized for their added value"
be incorporated in the spirit of capturing the full discussion.

We are concerned by criterion 4, and would ask that our earlier
comment about leaving this question to the market, and an explicit
statement that "purpose" could include "open to any use", be
incorporated.


We would support striking the criteria relating to IDNs for the
reasons observed by Bruce, and suggest replacing them by the general
observation that IDNs may lead to new risks of having confusingly
similar names, and that these risks need to be further understood
before specific recommendations can be made.

If criterion 8 is included, we would request that our earlier
comment on possibly anti-competitive aspects of this criterion be
incorporated.  We'd also suggest that it is clarified which
constituencies have supported this possible criterion, and which
haven't.


We would support the deletion proposed by Bruce in criterion 11
(multiple sponsorships).

We would support striking criterion 12 (differentiation), and would
request that our earlier comments on this be incorporated if this
remains in place.  Namely, that we see "substitutability" as
distinct from "confusing similarity," and would favor permitting the
creation of names serving similar or identical functions and markets
to existing names, so as to give Internet users the widest range of
options for name registration and market participants the chance to
compete fully with incumbents.

Also, we sense some disagreement on this criterion among
constituencies; it may be reasonable to give a clearer account of
who supports it and who doesn't -- just like it is done in an
exemplary fashion in the discussion of sponsorship.


Kind regards,

Wendy Seltzer and Thomas Roessler
(ALAC liaisons to gtld-com and council.)




On 2003-05-21 16:05:14 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> To: "Council (list)" <council@dnso.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:05:14 +0200
> Subject: [council] New compromise text - gTLDs
> Organization: AIM
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> Bruce,
> thank you for your comments on the gTLD report. I understand that
> you made clear that the content of these comments are done by you
> in your capacity as registrar's representative. 
> 
> As chairman of the gTLDs committee, I support the change
> regarding the description of the objective criteria for
> expansion.  You suggest these should be the subject for a future
> PDP. I agree. The committee has no intent to circumvent a PDP. It
> was just doing what was asked of it. 
> 
> I am however concerned about the reduction in these example
> criteria from 8 to 3. Specifically, let me comment on your
> suggested deletions:
> 1. Deletion - "Future expansion should increase the level of
> competition". You suggest that any extra name will automatically
> increase competition and therefore this criteria is unnecessary.
> This seems to mix the idea of choice and competition. Competition
> is a function on the offering and the supplier. 
> 
> 2. Deletion "names should be for commercial and non-commercial
> purposes".  You say this is a redundant.  Perhaps it is but given
> the oft expressed concern of the non-commercial constituency that
> their interests may be left out, it seems wise sometimes to state
> the obvious.
> 
> 3. Deletion "Future names should add value to the namespace" . I
> am surprised about this deletion as it is one of the Lynn
> criteria which were explicitly supported in the Registrars paper.
> Are you saying that future names may well add NO value to the
> namespace?
> 
> 4. IDNs - the text in the report was supplied by Jeff Neumann and
> Cary Carp from the gTLDs constituency after discussion. It seemed
> like a useful summary. The change you make about delayed
> implementation is a new undiscussed issue.  (If there remains
> concern with the text, I suggest we simply delete all reference
> to IDNs). 
> 
> 5.Deletion "differentiation" - you delete this on the grounds
> differentiation is achieved if names are not confusingly similar.
> These are separate concepts. It also disregards an important
> section of discussion on the committee. The concept of
> differentiation is central to the papers of the BC, IPC and ISPs.
> Support from "segmentation" was given in discussion by a member
> of the Registrars. It was in the Lynn paper supported in the
> Registrars position. The latter half of the original paragraph
> picked up the finessing of the ALAC paper regarding
> differentiation. 
> 
> The report submitted tried to capture the various sometimes
> competing views of participants. But I believe your edits go too
> far in erasing this diversity. In my capacity as chairman please
> find attached a proposed compromise text (v5) in which I pick up
> the procedural changes you make (link to PDP) but try to maintain
> a fuller list of elements considered by participants as worthy of
> inclusion in that PDP. Version 5 also contains the recent gTLD
> registries paper.  Philip
>