RE: [registrars] Structure for new gtlds

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Bruce,

I agree, we need to form a view, better a yet a proposal of our own.

Initial thoughts: I know I don't like the GNSO TLD Committee's proposal.
But the demand-driven idea expressed by the NCUC leaves a lot issues
open. For example, it doesn't address what happens when a registry or
TLD fails. That is a huge issue that can't be left up in the air. It
gets to consumer confidence which will certainly affect registrars
significantly.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:49 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Structure for new gtlds

Hello All,

The registrars constituency is yet to form a view on how to structure
the gtld namespace for new gtlds.

The business constituency has apparently formed a position.

Attached is the views of the non-commercial constituency.

It would good to receive some comments from registrars on this issue.
Personally I am learning more towards the non-commercial constituency
view.
ie let the market decide, ensure that new registries meet some technical
standards of performance and reliability, and use an auction process
where there is contention for the same gtld.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


NCUC Statement on New TLDs. 

V 1.2, 18 February 2003
Approved by Adcom 24 Feb 2003

In response to CEO Stuart Lynn's call for policy guidance, a GNSO
Council Committee has adopted a document defining a policy approach to
new TLDs. That policy is based on a Business Constituency position paper
defining a restrictive approach to name space management. 

The proposal is inimical to the interests of most domain name users. If
implemented it would have the following negative effects:
 
1.		It would dramatically raise the cost of domain name
registration in new TLDs 
2.		It would limits users' choice of an online identity and
thwart any attempt to introduce popular new names that responded to real
user demand
3.		It would bring a halt to competition in the registry
market
4.		It would defeat any attempt to innovate by tailoring
registry architecture and technology to specific markets
	
	The claimed benefits of this approach do not exist:
5.		It would not help preserve user service when registries
fail
6.		It would not have any beneficial effect on users'
ability to find things on the Internet
	
	The NCUC supports a demand-driven approach to TLD additions.
ICANN should allow new names to be proposed by interested communities,
entrepreneurial registry operators, or a combination of both. We believe
that ICANN should define a process that permits addition of a maximum of
30 new TLDs each year. Five of these 30 should be reserved for
noncommercial user groups. ICANN's assessment of these applications
should be based on adherence to a minimal set of ICANN-defined technical
specifications and conformity to established ICANN policies, such as
UDRP. Approving a TLD should be - and could be - as simple as
accrediting a registry. Whether the business models proposed were
"sponsored" or "unsponsored," "restricted" or not, would be up to the
applicants. Contention among applicants for the same name would be
settled by auction, with the proceeds going to ICANN. We understand that
such a procedure raises many issues of detail that are not elaborated
here. But the basic policy issu!
e put before the GNSO is whether TLD additions should be demand-driven
or "structured." We favor the open, demand-driven approach.
	
	The NCUC cannot support the proposed GNSO TLD Committee Policy.
Contrary to the above stated principle favoring an open and competitive
structure, the Committee proposes that no open TLD should be allowed to
exist ever again. ICANN would only expand the name space by defining a
fixed, mutually exclusive set of categories that users would be stuffed
into. All new TLDs would be sponsored and restricted, and registries
will be forced to authenticate registrants "to ensure that they are
registering names that are germane to their businesses and not
infringing on another's intellectual property."  (We note with
disappointment the proposal's apparent inability to understand that not
all domain names are owned by "businesses.") 
	 The Committee also proposes a radical change in the nature of
the domain name registration industry. It proposes that registries
should have no control over the TLD names that they operate. Instead,
ICANN will make itself a central planning authority for the name space,
defining all TLD names and assigning operation of the names to
"qualified" registry operators. We note that the proposal says nothing
about the critical issue of how names are assigned to registries, an
issue of tremendous political and economic importance.  
	
	We wish to make the following observations:
 

§		The concept of a "structured" or "taxonomised" name
space, faces a great deal of opposition among ICANN participants, and
has no apparent support outside the BC/trademark constituencies. At the
Amsterdam public forum, opponents outnumbered supporters by a 10 to 1
ratio. We also note that a member of the BC and a member of the
Intellectual Property constituency were among the public critics of the
proposal in Amsterdam.