AXISNET call for the use of the Geographical Diversity in the process of choosing the new gTLDs that will be used.

Based on the "Internet is for everyone" concept.

Comments about the new Domain Name System for a world wide use.

The Working Group C of the DNSO org has published its interim report that have diferent statements about the new global top-level domains. This is the public comment that AXISNET, the Peruvian Association of Users and Internet Service Providers, send to the global community as a contribution to the process.

We have used many ideas from the works developed by the various groups that have been elaborating the first aproaches to this matter. For the easyness of the redaction and reading of this document we have not put reference from wich proposal we have took some words, ideas, or sentences. We undertand that each group will recognize its ideas and they will understand if we agree with some of them, change a little bit the sense of other ones, and, of course, we are totally against some of the ideas that have been written.

Abstrac of the proposal (position and recomendations)

We agree and have special strong petition about the next points:

• A defined proportion of the new gTLDs should be reserved for names that reflect distinct cultural/linguistic groups. ICANN's 5 geographic regions could be used as the basis for these reservations.

• We propose the "NOS" (Naciones Originales Sudamericanas, Original SouthAmerican Nations) and the "LAT" (LatinAmerican) gTLDs. There is plenty of other options.

• There is more than 50 languages that are spoken in the LatinAmerican area. Each deserve, at the right time, its own gTLD and the administration of its own DNS root server.

Proposal and its rationale

• We want to start with a call to follow the spirit of the White Paper that talk about geographic diversity. And this geographic diversity is a recognition that internet is not only ENGLISH words, of ACRONYMS that have some meaning for english speakers. Internet is for everyone, and it has arrived the day to show to the whole world wide community that this is not only a sentence, it is a way, it is reality, it is legacy that we must build for the future generations.

• We urge ICANN to have a flexible, diverse, and open approach to the addition of new TLDs to the Domain Name system.

• Internet users in a world wide basis has shown that they use TLDs as a tool for global communication, but at the same time for regional, community or common interest identification.

• A defined proportion of the new gTLDs should be reserved for names that reflect distinct cultural/linguistic groups. ICANN's 5 geographic regions could be used as the basis for these reservations.

• Expanding the number of gTLDs and making their semantic content relate to different cultures and languages will help in getting a global internet but, at the same time, a special internet for every user, group, community, nation, region. This will help in getting the "Internet is for everyone" idea a powerfull tool for social, cultural and economical benefit for more people all around the world.

• The limitation to 6 or 10 initial "test bed" new gTLDs is too limited and imposes undue restrictions on competition, innovation, and cultural diversity.

• There has been proposed a gTLD for the indegenous Nations and Peoples of North America (NAA).

• The introduction of political geography to the top level of the DNS was ONE mechanism (among many possible) for the translation of the responsability and the day-to-day work on the management of the DNS system all around the world.

• Internet was not created to go against political geography, and, at the same time, it was not created to support political geography. The use of political geography, by using the ccTLDs, was just ONE of the many ways, to divide responsabilities and do an easier administration of the whole DNS system.

• Internet was created to communicate. And in these days, the global community, all around the world, needs a different, open approach to the decision of wich new gTLDs will be created.

• Other posibilites for choosing gTLDs have been regional (South America, European Union), nations (native nations of South America, Africa, Asia, Europe), religious (cristians, judes), political (liberal, communist, socialist, capitalism, pragmatism), groups of interests (sports, bussiness, cultural, friends, cars, photo), ages (youngs, children, adults, olders), languages (chinese, japanes, quechua, spanish, portugues, and many, many others)... and so on. The point is that political geography was choosen as an easy way to give a better and clearer administration on those pioneer days. Today, technology, and the broad difussion of the tecniches and the DNS system make possible to have a bigger point of view and get a special domain for the many interests that are around the internet.

• This proposal, geographic diversity, can be against the "dominant monopolic forces on the market", it means against the interests of some of the ccTLDs, or the generic international domains (com. net. org), but the motivation of the public benefit is distinct from the motivation of the private benefit or the "elites" that would like to keep the status quo.

• A special domain, called "NOS" (Original SouthAmerican Nations, or "Naciones Originales SudAmericanas) should be approved as a start point of recognition of the diversities that the original different cultures in SouthAmerica have when they were conquered, but, most important, that those difference in culture, language, and the way of living, are alive for more than 50 million people just in the area of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brasil, Chile, Argentina and other countries in the area.

• If the intention is to include the Central American part with the South American part of the continent, then we can look for a better name that reflect the daily way of living of the LatinAmerican community (we propose in this case the gTLD: "LAT" )

• Just in Peru, there is the "QUECHUA" community, "AYMARA" community, "ASHANINKA" community, and more than other 30 different communities with its own language, customes, and a diferent way of living. Spanish is not the only language spoken here, occidental way of living is not the only way of living, if Internet is for everyone, and it is a tool for a better understanding and communication betwen the people then we must reach those brothers that until this day are with less opportunities to go inside the technology because they were not took in the account of the political geograpy that was choosen to the management of the original gTLDs system. Another story will be if some of this communities are given the opportunity to get the administration of its own gTLDs registry. They will be the first promotion tools for getting the internet as a tool for their communication and social, cultural and commercial development.

Last but not least, each new gTLD that will be established, must recognize that the name of the countries are under the responsabilty of each goverment. Lets say that, in the case of our country, Peru, if there is a new gTLD dedicated to the families (.fam), the peru.fam or the pe.fam sTLDs should be registered only for the representants of each country registered on the GAC committe and under the name of the Goverment that they represent.

Who and what systems would be affected

• The ones that will be affected are the ccTLDs. But they can inform how many are the interested people of groups that have request for special domains in native languages or that reflect native cultures.

• The answer, according with the estadistics on the area, is that the internet has reach deep penetration on the main cities, and with the wealthy population. The rate is higher in this level. In the native cultures the penetration of the internet is weak, poor and to have its own gTLDS, with a meaning for them, will help to "put more internet on them" and "put more of them on the internet".

Implementation plan

• There is many countries in LatinAmerica, and many, many different native cultures. We agree that there must be a gradual, step by step increment on the number of different domains. But at the same time, we agree that there should be a convocatory in the region calling for the communities that want to have its own gTLD.

• From the ones that have been presented by a representative entity, there will be a internal election, random style. From the list, random ordered, each year there will be 25 new gTLDs that will be add to the root system. In this way, every proposal will know in wich year they will be accepted on the root system.

• This could not be the best plan, is just an initial one. We are open to better implementation plans.

Costs and risks of the proposal

• It is a matter of political decision. The GAC of the ICANN should be consulted, and and aproval from them should be benefical for the process.

• If the GAC committe goes against giving gTLDs to the differente communities that are inside their political geographical frontiers then ICANN board should take final decision since the GAC is a consulting body.

Proposal's support in the various stakeholder communities

• There is similar proposal from the Native Nations of NorthAmerica and Canada. With a bigger difusion of the posibilities for other communities the support will be bigger and DNSO/ICANN will be showing that "Internet is for every one" is a goal that can be reached with good spirit and long time commitment.

Other points

We have total agreement with the next points of view:

• There should be new global top-level domains (gTLDs).

• If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get easy-to-remenber domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to succesful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered. Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge noncommercial name space.

• If there is many TLDs, and it becomes relatively free the entry of new TLDs, then there will be less probability that just a few names, a few registries, a few registrars develop a oligopolic position over the Domain Name system. This would benefit the domain-name registrants.

• Currently, the weekly growth rate of domain name registrations is over 270,500. Current gTLDs simply will not be able to contain such growth.

• ICANN should declare in advance its intention to add 500 new gTLDs over the next three years. A pre-announcement of a larger number will make it clear that the initial organizations that will get the first new gTLDs will have plenty of additional competition in the near future.

• It would not make sense to distort the entire structure of the Internet space name simply in order to avoid additional costs to trademark owners.

• Artificial limits on the name space should not be used as a from of intelecctual property protections, especially once a UDRP has been adopted. Cybersquatters have lost every court case in wich they have been challenged.

• The existence of new gTLDs, as a result of modern technology or at least a result of modern times, can not be seen as something than must be stoped because it is a potential tool for the damage of the property rigths of the owners of famous trademarks. No person would think that the VCRs, photocopying machines, tape and CD recorders should be forbidden just because some people will use it as a tool for going over the rights of the owners of famous trademarks and as a tool for the violation of copyrights.

• ICANN should allow existing registries to add additional new TLDs.

• About the profit or non profit caracteristic of the new registries: We think that each new TLD must indicate if its operation will be based on profit or non-profit (cost-revovery) basis. This should be indicated on all the written and electronic documents and publicity that the registry do to promote its services.

• If we add just 6 to 10 new gTLDs then we will be the fathers of an oligopoly of registries and if they are not shared then we will create a monopoly under each name.

• ICANN should allow the choices of end users in the marketplace to decide which models and names succeed and which fail.

• ICANN should concentrate exclusively on tecnical and administrative coordination of registry operators to ensure stability, interoperability, and accountability. It should establish basic qualifications for top-level domain name registries, and these should be confined exclusively to technical stability and financial responsability.

• There should be centralized access to the "WHOIS" type data.

• ICANN, and the registries, should provide, in a centralized way, tools and mechanisms to eradicate the abusive practices causing controversy in the DNS.

• The registries are not "proprietary" of the organizations in charge of them. The potential legal difficulties in moving the registry data from one registry to another in case of technical or legal problems would be enough to choose the "nor propietary registry" model as the one that will be followed.

• Backups at another registry would be highly desirable.

• Physical disasters can strike a particular installation. A single monolithic site, no matter how secure, can fail.

• A requirement of easy transferability of registry data is that the underlaying software and protocol be standardized.

• The registry should be operated as a shared registry. Profit of not-for-profit cost-recovery basis is an option that each registry must choose and made public in every document and statement.

• Registries should not support any form of arbitration directly or otherwise embroil itself in that political debate.

• Registries should not try to make new law, new rules for the arbitration. Thats a work for a court of competent jurisdiction. Registries should not support proponets of making new law, such as WIPO. In short, a root registry should recuse itself from being proactive in these legal issue. It must remain steadfastly neutral.

• It is the registry's bussiness to register names, not to adjudicate them. It is the court's business to adjudicate.

• Reliable systems cannot depend on the efforts and good faith of unpaid volunteers.

• The reference standard is BIND-8.2. The reference authority for BIND is the IETF. Whatever software the registry uses must be 100% compliant with the standards that BIND implements.

• ICANN/DNSO, in conjunction with IETF, will be responsible for developing an open-source Shared Registry System.

• Each registry wishing to suport registrars must us its own SRS, developed by them or in concert with other registries, but following the open-source model of the Shared Registry System that ICANN/DNSO should develop.

• In these days, a minimum system-wide uptimes exceeding 99.99% are expected as normal. In order to accomplish this throughout the world, it is recommended that the registry operate at least two separate root-server sites per continental landmass, physically located on each contiental landmass, with sufficiente sepration between them. In addition, each root server site should be multi-homed, via two separte links, to the Internet backbone.

• The Whois directory must include the public key of the registrant.

We have partial agreement with the next points of view:

• "It would be appropriate for ICANN, in expanding the name space, to begin with a testebed in which it adds a number of new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period". This must be done, but at the same time there must be the public commitment of ICANN to add at least 500 new gTLDs in the next 3 years.

• "It has been reported that a number of six to ten new gTLDs would be enough for this evaluation time". 6 to 10 will not give enough space for the geographic diversity rule that must be followed according with the spirit and the letters written on the Withe Paper and on the IFWP process.

• "ICANN should give to each registry just one single new TLD". It seems a too small quantity. 3 to 10 for each registry should be a better approach for reaching the 500 gTLDs in the next 3 years.

• "The initial names should be selected completely independent of any consideration of registries to run them". The initial names should be selected according to the proposal that each registry present. It is its own risk to choose its proposals and make them a good gTLD with enough customers to build a strong operation. The ICANN/Board is not "on the market" and their thoughts about what will be a success gTLD can be different from the people and companies that will put money and efforts to build a new gTLD.

We are against the next points of view:

• "Delaying of the addition of net gTLDs until after the creation of a TradeMark dispute resolution mechanism and/or a famous marks exclusion procedure." There is an UDRP. There is a mechanism.

• "We should wait until a UDRP get aproval from WIPO". WIPO interests can not be the consumer interest, the agenda of WIPO can be different of the Internet user agenda, the WIPO concepts are going to defend the so called famous marks against the small regional companies who has been using similar names for many years in countries were world wide famous marks mean nothing. It is a problem that the court in each land must solve. It is not a problem that the Internet community or ICANN or DNSO.ORG must solve.

• "ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings". The market (the registries) must do proposals for new gTLDs (3 to 10 each) and the end user (the final judge) wil decide wich one will survive.

• "New gTLDs should be introduced in a controlled manner on an as needed basis." New gTLDs are needed today!

• "It is strictly at the option of the registry whether or not they chose to support registrars." ALL registries must support registrars. The only option for the registries should be if they are a profit or non-for-profit operation with a cost-recovery based. But, all of them must be SHARED registries.

Javier Rodriguez

VicePresident

AXISNET