Re: [wg-c] Initial Numbers

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

>
>>>> Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 12/11/99 03:25PM >>>
>
>There has been some discussion about the choice of 6-10 as the
>initial number of new TLDs. Some say it is too large for a
>"test" and too small for robust competition. The latter
>proposition is true, but is not a significant criticism if 6-10
>is seen as the first step in a continuing process. The "too
>large for a test" argument, however, lacks any supporting logic
>that I can discern.
>
>Kevin C's discussion of the topic was designed to create the
>impression that the authorization of new TLDs is a step into
>uncharted territory, a mysterious process fraught with
>horrendous risk and irreversible consequences.
>
>Absurd. We have been adding new TLDs to the root for ten years.
>Here are some undisputed facts about the number added since
>1994:
>1994: 22
>1995: 30
>1996: 31
>1997: 47
>1998: 2
>It should be noted that no restrictions were placed on the
>business or administrative model of any of these TLDs, other
>than the broad guidelines contained in RFC 1591.

I do not believe that it makes any kind of sense to say that because 
geographic TLDs have been added to the root, we already know 
everything there is to know about new TLDs.  I do not believe that 
Mr. Mueller's proposition to the contrary enjoys the support of even 
a ponderable minority of this WG or of the Internet community.  
However, I, unlike Mr. Mueller, am more than willing to be shown 
incorrect in my thinking that his lumping-together of Generic/Global 
TLDs and Geographic TLDs is a mark of good thinking or of good policy.

>
>Technically, adding a new TLD to the root means adding a few
>lines of text with the character string and pointers to two name
>servers. There are no technical issues whatsoever as long as the
>number stays below one million, which it certainly will do.

I know that this proposition does not enjoy universal support.  It 
overlooks the fact that the frequency of root queries is almost 
certainly proportional to the number of zones in the root.  I would 
love to see the experimental data which show that increasing the 
number of zones by four orders of magnitude will not result in an 
unacceptably-great increase in DNS latency.  In fact, DNS latency 
is a subject I do not recall *anyone* on this list (other than myself) 
ever having raised, notwithstanding many people bandy about the 
absence of technical barriers to increasing the number of zones 
in the root.

>
>Let us then move on to the question of whether there are
>significant economic and policy risks posed by adding new TLDs.
>
>First, let me concede that in purely administrative terms, there
>is a limit to the number of applications that ICANN is able to
>review, monitor, and approve. But since ICANN took only
>two-three months to receive dozens of applications and accredit
>the initial 5 testbed registrars, and has now accredited approx.
>100, no one can reasonably contend that ICANN is incapable of
>going through a similar process for registries. In this respect,
>10 registries introduced over a six month period looks about
>right.
>
The assumption that the requirements for vetting a registrar are 
congruent with those for vetting a registry and the associated 
TLD is unstated here, and, I suggest, without support, substantial 
or otherwise.  There is no reason to suspect, for example, that the 
role of a registrar (for which there will likely be redundancy) is as 
mission-critical as that of a registry (as to which there must be 
demonstrably-robust mechanisms for supplying a successor).

>What about economic policy considerations? Clearly, there are
>uncertainties here but most of them argue for more, rather than
>fewer, TLDs. 

The technique of "counting" uncertainties is a method of decisionmaking 
that I do not believe I have ever heard of, but then, I'm not an MBA :-)  
I should think that our attention should be drawn to the significance of the 
uncertainties, first among which I enumerate the unknown impact of adding 
Generic/Global TLDs on the economic interests protected by trademark 
and fair competition laws.  Indeed, the legal system is still having trouble 
grappling with the relationship between trademarks, international economic 
activity, and the .com/.net/.org namespace.  Trying to solve this problem 
by opening the door to expansion of the namespace may well be 
tantamount to extinguishing fires with gasoline.

>From the standpoint of economic policy, one new
>TLD, devoted to some relatively minor market segment such as
>.mus, will tell us absolutely nothing about any trademark or
>competition policy considerations that might be posed by the
>addition of new TLDs. A .mus TLD might be lucky to get 500 new
>registrations in its first year. What would we know at the end
>of that period? Nothing new. We had similar experiences with the
>addition of .int a few years ago.

First of all, .int was not an attempt to learn anything.  It was an attempt 
(successful, I believe) to recognize the independence of international 
organizations.  I am more concerned with gaging the extent to which 
the system will need to deal with cocacola.per, disney.nom, 
goldenarches.per, and so on.  If we can demonstrate an ability to squash 
those bugs convincingly and quickly, then it may be time to move on to 
other, more commercially-exploitable TLDs.  But if .nom and .per are 
overwhelmed by trademark-diluters and free riders, then we will be 
thankful that we have expanded the problem into a small number of 
TLDs whose semantic content is at least facially inconsistent with the 
perils we should be trying to avoid.

>
>Suppose we fail to add *any* generic TLD that could compete
>directly with dot com, net and org (such as dot web, dot info).
>Would we learn anything about the cross-elasticity of demand for
>domain names? No. 

In one fell swoop, Mr. Mueller dismisses that segment of this working 
group which has suggested (not without merit) that the first few names 
added should be content-void, such as .aaa, .aab, .aac.  If our concern 
is solely about cross-elasticity, we should have been able to learn something 
from the operation of psuedo Generic/Global TLDs such as .io, .cc, and .nu.  
If that is our sole concern, then, golly, why would we need to add ANY new 
GTLDs?  Remember, we already have it on authority from Mr. Mueller that 
a root zone is a root zone is a root zone.  Wherefore, therefore, is the 
unholy rush to create new TLDs?

>Would we have addressed the single biggest
>reason to introduce new TLDs, which is to reduce the scarcity of
>good names in the NSI gTLDs? No. 

Nor will we create new opportunities for cybersquatters and free riders.  

>Will we learn whether the UDRP
>and other existing legal protections for trademark are
>sufficient to prevent name speculation? No. 

Since we are not already certain about the efficacy of the UDRP, I should 
prefer to test the policy with relatively innocuous TLDs (nom, per and mus) 
before proceeding to a test with *real* and *substantial* potential for mischief.

>Will we learn
>whether expansion of the name space reduces the incentive for
>name speculation? No.
>

>No, the only effect of such drastically limited "testbed" will
>be to prolong the artificial scarcity, which means that the
>suppressed demand will build up even more, and make the prospect
>of handing out authorizations for new TLDs that might compete
>with dot com even more difficult and contentious. 

On the contrary, a continued insistence on the "gimme my TLD *NOW*" is 
at least as likely to continue to energize the "No New TLD" school, which, 
paradoxically, will ensure the continuance of the artificial scarcity.  That 
scarcity was supposed to be remedied three years ago by the IAHC proposal, 
but that proposal never took into account the reaction of the international 
trademark community, especially when pushed in the direction of opposing 
change through NSI and its front organizations.

>I can think of
>no better demonstration of the utter bankruptcy of the entire
>ICANN endeavor than an inability to confront the com registry
>monopoly in the first round of additions.

I can think of no greater failure to learn from the lessons of the past three 
years than to insist on the approach of gimme what I want NOW.

>
>And suppose we fail to add any for-profit registries, or any
>non-profit registries. Will we learn whether for-profit or
>non-profits are better, or whether there is any discerable
>difference in their behavior? No.

Gosh.  I never supposed that .per or .nom are non-profit in nature.  
What am I missing here?
>
>Will the addition of one new, highly restricted TLD allow us to
>know whether opening up the name space will encourage innovative
>service development? No.

Mr. Mueller continues to set up strawmen, for reasons which should 
be transparent to the WG by now :-)  I, for one, mourn the passing of 
the academic Internet.  I began when .edu addresses were the hallmark 
of sophistication and .com users were denigrated as rhinoceri.  But it's 
too late to turn back the clock on this issue:  the Internet has been 
commercialized.  Now it's only a concern about how to progress in the 
commercialization of the DNS.

>
>Whatever we do in the initial stage must yield enough variety to
>provide some valuable insight into the policy and economic
>impact of expanding the name space.

Whatever we do in the initial stage must be sufficiently warm and fuzzy 
to all of the important constituencies as not to galvanize the economic power 
of any of them with the power to stop the whole process.

>
>I see no feasible way for the the initial introduction to be
>less than 9. We need at least 3 highly generic TLDs such as
>.web, .zone, or .nom to compete with NSI, 

This is the first instance I've seen of regarding .nom as "highly generic."  
It was always my impression that .nom was created as a non-commercial 
space, in which mcdonald.nom would be able to resist the hamburger 
mavens (so long as mcdonald.nom was for and about that distinguished 
ilk of Scotsmen).  If .nom is "highly generic" then I suggest that .nom 
has been sufficiently poisoned as to be unsuitable for the testbed.  
But, in fact, I do not believe that .nom has in fact lost the semantic content 
with which it was imbued by the IAHC.


>3 policy-driven or
>"chartered" TLDs to see how that works, and at least 3-4
>designated for experimental new services or applications, such
>as the E-164 proposal. The initial applications should also be
>evenly balanced vis a vis for profit and nonprofit. This does
>not even begin to address issues of cultural variation -- what
>about TLDs in Spanish, German, Korean, etc?

Mr. Mueller's ultimate paragraph makes it clear that the "6-10" proposal 
is not, in fact, being floated by many supporters in good faith.  This is 
downright foolish.  It assumes that those who have opposed the 
expansion of the TLD namespace in the past will somehow be asleep 
at the switch during the next phase of growth, and this assumption is 
as unsupported by experience as it is intrinsically unwise.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of 
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.

"I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, think ye might err."
 - - Oliver Cromwell
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************