|
ICANN
April 2003 |
ICANN GNSO Council
gTLDS committee v3
Contents
Introduction
Goals
of expanding the name space
Drivers
of expansion
Technical
and financial qualification
Segmentation,
differentiation and value added
To
sponsor or not to sponsor?
Annexes:
1.
Background on establishment of the committee
2.
Constituency positions and submissions
Introduction
The GNSO council invoked a committee of
the whole to address the question asked of it by the ICANN Board (resolution
2.151 see annex 1). The committee met monthly by telephone conference starting
February 2003.
Participants had in some measure or
other a vision of how the gTLD namespace should look. It was agreed that a
future expansion should take place in such a way that was demand-driven and
bottom-up and in a way that increased competition while avoiding net user
confusion and deception. To the extent that this report has a set of
recommendations, it would seem there is support for the idea that the future
gTLD namespace should be structured in a number of ways.
Goals
of expanding the name space
1. Future expansion should increase the
level of competition.
2. Future expansion should avoid names
that are confusingly similar so as to avoid confusing net users*.
3. Future names could be in any
language, subject to the technical recommendations coming out of the existing
work on internationalized domain names (IDN). A significant limiting factor is
the stability of the namespace. In respect to IDN gTLDs (ie IDN.IDN) ICANN
should ensure that the ASCII translation or transliteration of any new IDN gTLD
should not be confusingly similar to an existing generic ASCII gTLD or
vice-versa, so as to avoid confusing net users.
4. New names that were IDN translations
or transliterations of an existing gTLD or vice-versa, should be obliged to
follow the same policies and practices of the original gTLD. In particular, where the sponsoring
organization for a sponsored TLD feels that its target community would be well
served by new names that are IDN translations or transliterations of the
existing sponsored gTLD, these may be permitted with the explicit consent of
that sponsoring organization. Any such new domains must, at the least, be
obliged to follow the policies of the original sponsored gTLD. (It may be noted
that these policies will likely require modification to accommodate their
implementation in multiple languages).
5. Future expansion should avoid names
that might deceive or defraud net users*.
6. Future names should be both for
commercial and non-commercial purposes.
*tests for these will need to be considered.
Drivers
of expansion
7. Expansion of the gTLD namespace
should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties to
ICANN. There is no support for a pre-determined list of new names that putative
registries would bid for. Expansion should be demand-driven. It should be
sufficient that a viable demand is perceived by the name applicant and no
objective test should be required.
8. Registries could operate multiple
gTLDs. A single registry need not be
linked uniquely with one name. However, in order to meet the goal on
competition, this flexibility will need to be limited to the extent that it
might lead to market dominance in the supply of registry services. A judgement
on dominance needs to be well balanced: ICANN should not needlessly set
barriers to entry for new applicants by restricting their choice of business
partners, nor needlessly prevent new applicants benefiting from any economies
of scale resulting from multiple TLD registries.
9. To the extent that a TLD is
sponsored, sponsors would typically sponsor a single gTLD, though it should be
possible for a sponsor to sponsor additional names where the nature of the
sponsored space is complimentary.
Technical
and financial qualification
10. Registries should be required as at
present to demonstrate technical and financial competence during the
contract-negotiation stage with ICANN. This demonstration should not be a
significant barrier to entry. Financial competence will need to be demonstrated
in context relevant to the specific business model and proposed size of the
gTLD. A performance bond may be an
elegant solution for ICANN: it in effect devolves the judgement on financial
competence to a third party while providing the required reassurance.
11. The application fee for future
applications for names should discourage spurious applicants, but should also
not penalize losers beyond the actual administrative costs borne by the ICANN
secretariat.
Registry/sponsor
failure.
12. The investment made by registrants
in their name should be protected from the consequences of registry failure. It
may be sufficient that ICANN maintains the ability to itself swiftly transfer
the relevant TLD zone file** from the failed registry to another registry.
13. There need to be rules to determine
the conditions under which such a transfer would take place.
**
A zone file contains data describing a portion of the domain name space. Zone
files contain the information needed to resolve domain names to Internet
Protocol (IP) numbers.
Segmentation,
differentiation and value added
14. There is wide but not universal
support for what was termed variously segmentation, differentiation, and value
added. It was generally agreed that given the objective of a demand-driven
bottom-up space, ICANN need not be in a position to have to judge
differentiation beyond the obvious. If a new registry/sponsor proposed a name
and promised differentiation, that should be sufficient to award the name. Whether
the applicant subsequently succeeded in achieving true differentiation would be
a function of the success of its business model.
To
sponsor or not to sponsor?
15. To some extent the concept of
segmentation and differentiation logically lead to support for sponsored names
– a process which self-determines a segment or differentiated space where the
sponsor wishes to be. Expansion of the
name space of only sponsored gTLDs was supported by the Business Constituency
and the Intellectual Property Constituency.
The non-commercial constituency supports a model with both sponsored and
unsponsored names possible: conflicts over names would be determined by price
in an auction process. (There was no support from other constituencies to the
auction model.)
Annex 1
Background
on establishment of the committee
October 2002,
the ICANN CEO’s action plan on gTLDs made the recommendation below.
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm
Part
III Recommendation: As ICANN proceeds
with its new TLD evaluation process –
and, if the Board concurs, with an additional round of new sponsored TLDs –
this basic question of taxonomic rationalization should be addressed within the
ICANN process. Accordingly, it is my recommendation to the ICANN Board that the
DNSO and its Names Council be requested to develop and submit its advice and
guidance on the issue.
December 2002,
the Board agreed with the recommendation and made the three resolutions below.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15dec02.htm#AnnualMeetingoftheTransitionBoard
Whereas, the Board accepted the report
of the ICANN New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) at its
meeting on 23 August 2002;
Whereas, at that meeting the Board
instructed the President to develop a plan for action for approval by the
Board;
Whereas, the President presented An
Action Plan Regarding New TLDs for discussion at the Public Forum in Shanghai
on 30 October 2002, and posted that Action Plan for public comment on 8
November 2002;
Whereas, comments have been received,
posted, and evaluated regarding that Action Plan;
Whereas, the Action Plan was again
discussed at the Public Forum in Amsterdam on 14 December 2002; and
Whereas, the Action Plan recommends
that key recommendations of the NTEPPTF report be implemented; that certain
questions regarding the future evolution of the generic top-level namespace be
referred for advice to the GNSO described in Article X of the New Bylaws
approved in Shanghai on 31 October 2002 and as further refined at this meeting;
and that steps be taken towards approval of a limited number of new sponsored
gTLDs;
§
Resolved [02.150] that the Board
authorizes the President to take all steps necessary to implement those aspects
of the NTEPPTF recommendations as specified in the Action Plan;
§
Resolved
[02.151] that the Board requests the GNSO to provide a recommendation by such
time as shall be mutually agreed by the President and the Chair of the GNSO
Names Council on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level
namespace and, if so, how to do so;
§
Resolved [02.152] that the Board
directs the President to develop a draft Request for Proposals for the Board's
consideration in as timely a manner as is consistent with ICANN staffing and
workload for the purpose of soliciting proposals for a limited number of new
sponsored gTLDs.
February 2003,
ICANN’s general counsel has clarified that the Board asked for the GNSO Council
to formulate and communicate its views on two separate questions. The questions
are:
a. whether to structure the
evolution of the generic top level namespace and,
b. if there should be
structuring, how to do so.
Annex 2
Constituency
positions and submissions
The Business Constituency and the
Non-commercial constituency submitted papers at the beginning of the
committee’s discussions which acted as substance for debate at the committee
first meeting and the subsequent production of the committee’s conclusions
version 1 and 2.
The gTLD registries constituency
reacted in writing to the committee’s version 2 conclusions.
That reaction was commented on by the
non-commercial constituency in writing and both reactions used at the basis for
discussion at the committee’s third meeting and the basis for committee
conclusions version 3.