[ga] RE: [BC] Discussion paper on domain names

[john.c.lewis@bt.com]

Philip and colleagues,

While your point about the need for a BC view has merit, I suggest that BC
has already committed the outline of its position through the comments that
I posted on your behalf on January 10, following the BC constituency
conference call on the Working Group C papers. It will be beneficial if we
can consolidate those statements in something which represents policy
positions in the broader context and that can be associated with the BC, but
I suggest that we should be careful not to lose some of the vital elements
at this stage.   

I endorse the NC proposal to try and establish a common basis on which to
move forward with the debate on the creation of new gTLDs. I would suggest
the addition of a number of criteria:

1) That the BC believes that the fundamental prerequiste in creating new
TLDs must be the stability of the Internet from the point of view of the
user as well as operationally. This has a number of implications:

2) That the TLD structure should embody a framework which precludes
replication of domain types, interest groups or business areas, to avoid
confusing Internet customers. (this is similar to your point 4 but
identifies the need for some management of the TLD functionalities, which
needs reconciliation with your point 9)

3) That there should be no additional domains created on a trial basis until
the effectiveness of the UDRP has been established and protection shown
adequate for protecting the valid interests of smaller entities, as well as
major enterprises.

4) That only a few additional TLDs should be added on an experimental basis
and their impacts monitored, prior to extending the numbers further. 

On reflection I would also suggest that some additional dimensions should be
considered:

5) That Domain registrants can register only in appropriate domains (ie
XXX-rated websites should not be able to register under domains supplying
childrens' books, entertainment and similar resources). While I believe that
the policy is covered in your point 1, I propose that this principle should
be strengthened. This is becoming a more significant issue for us as the
introduction of digital tv and its potential for distribution on the Net
raises the public awareness of this issue. 

6) That there should not be competition in the registry area as this will
introduce additional layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and operational
complexity for which the Internet user will have to bear the costs. 
 
Best regards

John C Lewis
Manager - International Organisations Europe
BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
BT co-ordinator ICANN representation
Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Philip Sheppard [SMTP:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent:	04 February 2000 16:18
> To:	BC DNSO LIST
> Subject:	[BC] Discussion paper on domain names
> 
> The BC representatives to the names council felt that it would help their
> position when the NC considers any recommendations from WG B or WG C to
> know where the BC lies on these issues. 
> In order not to repeat the debate of WGC (which failed to reach agreement
> of various end-games)  I propose below a set of fundamentals that we may
> wish to agree upon and which are also intended to win acceptance in other
> constituencies. This is to discuss freely on the BC list. 
> Your comments please:
> - on the need for a BC view - if not how do we function as a constituency?
> - on this proposal
>  
> A draft proposal for a Business Constituency position on new gTLDs
>  
> The BC believes that the objective in domain naming is: to create clarity
> for the
> net user by a controlled and responsible growth of top-level domain names.
> 
> A starting point therefore should be a set of principles for domain names
> which will also impact on the treatment of famous names. We propose the
> following principles: 
> 
> 1. Trust - a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.
> 2. Semantics - a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a
> significant number of net users.
> 3. Findability - a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular
> domain name.
> 4. Differentiation - a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so
> as not to confuse net users.
> 5. Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
> 
> 6. Simplicity - a gTLD should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure
> on a registry.
> 7. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name
> space.
> 8. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both
> commercial and non-commercial.
> 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the
> needs of an expanding Internet community.
> THE ABOVE IS A DRAFT
>  
> Philip Sheppard
> AIM - European Brands Association
> 9  av. des Gaulois  B-1040 Brussels
> Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702

application/ms-tnef