[registrars] [gtld-com] Paper on New gTLDs (fwd)

[Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de>]

FYI,

tom

----- Forwarded message from "Djolakian, Laurence" <Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org> -----

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:34:46 -0800

Dear Philip,

I am forwarding you the IPC statement. It will be soon posted on the IPC web site. 

Kind regards,
 
Laurence
 


Although the IPC's  preference was for the NTEPPTF designed study of the seven gTLDs approved in 2000 to be completed prior to the introduction of any additional domain name suffixes, we find generally that properly administered sponsored gTLDs present, as Stuart Lynn states in his paper titled "A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs," "fewer worries about trademark infringement and cybersquatting."  We therefore do not object to the introduction of a limited number of new sponsored gTLDs, provided that the abbreviated study of existing sponsored gTLDs suggested by Mr. Lynn confirms this finding.  (The abbreviated study will, according to Mr. Lynn, ask "Is there any evidence that sponsored TLDs are havens for cybersquatting or other registration abuses likely to cause concerns among significant portions of the Internet community?") 

Consistent with previous statements made by the IPC , we strongly suggest that the ICANN Board of Directors insist that applications for the new sponsored gTLDs have clear and specific rules regarding registration in the namespace.  Specifically, any new sponsored gTLD should have, at a minimum, clear rules about who is permitted to register second-level domain names in that space, and about what activities are or are not appropriate or acceptable on the corresponding sites, and for what purposes. Furthermore, these applications must also include a system to make sure that prospective domain name applicants qualify for registration under the sponsor's charter prior to obtaining a domain name registration. Moreover, a mechanism needs to be in place to ensure efficient resolution of violations of the sponsored gTLD's charter or restricted nature, and must provide that any third party have standing to challenge a domain name under these mechanisms. In this regard, a procedure mus!
t be established whereby a registrant found to have provided false information as to its entitlement to register in the sponsored gTLD, or to have registered or used a domain name registration in violation of the established purpose of the sponsored gTLD, will have the offending domain name removed from the namespace. 

The IPC supports the BC suggestion that there be "A differentiated expansion of the name space," and has advocated such a position over the years.  The IPC finds merit with the BC position that "all new domain names must meet the following principles":  differentiation, certainty, honesty, competition, diversity, and meaning.  Finally, the IPC does not as yet have a position on the BC proposal for the separation of the registry and the name, but it is one that is worthy of further consideration. 










 


----- End forwarded message -----

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w