Re: [gtld-com] Re: [council] Comments from gTLD Constituency on Current gTLD Committee draft

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

I believe I should be removed from this list.

Harold

Milton Mueller wrote:

> In preparation for our teleconference, I would like to make
> clear my reaction to Jeff Neuman's points below. I agree with 
> many of the points.
> 
> 
>>>>"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> 04/08/03 11:12PM >>>
>>>>
>  
> 
>>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.  
>>
> 
> This is an important point, but it is also debatable. There is in 
> fact no perfect semantic correspondence between ascii-english and
> most other scripts. It is therefore not clear to me why, say, a
> Chinese-character TLD meaning "network" should not be available
> to a new Chinese applicant simply because a U.S. company already
> runs ".net". Nor is it obvious that most users (who are not readers 
> of both languages) would be confused by two such domains even 
> if they are transliterations. Most importantly, do we want to 
> encourage the notion that anyone who has, say, a .com domain 
> must register their name in transliterated form under a <chinese 
> character> TLD roughly meaning "company?"
>  
> 
>>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?  
>>
> 
> Yes, we totally agree. What you say above is exactly what NCUC 
> meant by "demand driven." We do NOT mean that ICANN staff or 
> board conducts market analysis as a central planner and decides 
> for the world what there is demand for.
>  
> 
>>Number 7:  
>>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." 
>>
> 
> Agree that this is unclear. I also think it is ambiguous what is 
> meant by "a registry need not be linked uniquely with one name."
> 
> 
> 
>>Number 8 The committee may wish to use the words "To 
>>the extent that a TLD is sponsored..."
>>
> 
> Agree.
> 
> 
>>Number 9:  The gTLD Constituency believes that stating that all 
>>registries be required to "demonstrate financial competence" is 
>>fraught with ambiguity. 
>>
> 
> Agree. There really is little or no need for ICANN to be 
> concerned with the financial capabilities of registries,
> this is something that has to be sorted out in the market.
> Some kind of a simple, uniform performance bond might be a
> better solution. 
> 
> 
>>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.  
>>
> 
> You mean you don't agree that there is near-unanimous
> consensus on the use of auctions? 
> 
> 
>>Number 11:  This statement seems ambiguous.  
>>
> 
> I don't think it's ambiguous, I just think it's wrong. ICANN
> can encourage various forms of "industry best practice" that
> minimize the costs of failure, but it has no obligation to 
> protect registrants against registry failure. No one has to
> register in a new registry. Failure of a major, established 
> registry would be a serious problem, but there is no way
> ICANN can prevent that, or anticipate its consequences at
> the point of market entry. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>