Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Kent:
Here's a scenario. Tell me if it addresses your concerns.

On 1 Jan 2000, ICANN issues its long-awaited new gTLD decision. The rulemaking
contains the following items:

1) ICANN announces that it will accept applications to run TLDs from up to 10 new
qualified registries. It announces that 5 of them will be shared and 5 will be
exclusive. It issues an RFP with basic, minimal guidelines for each model. The
guidelines include whatever TM protection criteria the DNSO can agree upon.
Applications can be submitted any time after 1 March, 2000.

2) ICANN announces that it is prepared to add up to 300 new TLDs to the root over the
next 3 years, based on applications from registries. In cases of conflicting
applications for the same name ICANN will decide who, if anyone, gets it. In the first
year, each shared registry will be allowed to run 3 gTLDs and each exclusive will be
allowed to run 1 gTLD. The next year, 10 new registry proposals will be entertained,
and existing registries will be allowed to submit proposals to add TLDs to their
repertoire. The maximum new gTLDs in the second year will be 100. A third iteration
planned for the third year could take the number up to 300.

3) ICANN's decision contains an escape clause that allows it to put the brakes on the
expansion of the name space, but only if certain clearly defined criteria are met. In
other words, the presumption is that the expansion will go forward unless serious
problems are *proven* to arise.

Assume the "worst" from a TM/IP point of view: in the first year, there are actually
10 viable proposals for registries, which means that a maximum of 20 new gTLDs would
be *authorized* in the first year. Authorization is not the same thing as operation.
If they get the go-ahead from ICANN in April, the registries will come on line in
staggered intervals from May to October. Even by April, the Internet should have
several months of experience with whatever form of DRP it has adopted.

The advantage of a broad authorization of a significant number of new TLDs is that it
creates a competitive marketplace and makes ample room for all of the various parties,
both new and old, who want to get in to the market, with less arbitrary
discrimination. These are vital consumer and supplier benefits. They are are equal in
status to the claims of trademark owners. But if in fact serious TM problems occur,
ICANN could cut short the experiment and amend its plan.

It is also quite possible under this scenario that ICANN does *not* receive qualified
applications from 10 new registries, or that applications trickle in rather slowly.
Several people have raised serious questions about whether the business case exists
for more than three or four new registries. There is uncertainty about this. In my
opinion, ICANN owes it to the markeplace to err on the large side. That is, it is
better to be prepared to authorize 10 and then learn that only 5 are ready, than it is
to arbitrarily cut off 5 or 6 viable businesses.


Kent Crispin wrote:

> That sounds to me like advocacy of a "lots of TLDs in a short to medium
> term" approach.  That is the position that is being argued against;
> the phrase "100 immediately" is just a tag phrase labeling the
> position you advocate.  It is not a strawman.
>
> More disturbing, however, is your implicit assumption that nothing can
> go wrong, and that we really should press on regardless of what we may
> find from our first experience.  The subtext of your position is "add
> TLDs and damn the consequences".

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/