[wg-c] new TLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Mr. Campbell:

Your proposal for a .BANK tld is an interesting idea, and one
example of literally hundreds of possible applications of new
tlds.

You ask "whether a managed or restricted gTLD is something ICANN
can consider in its definitions of gTLDs or not." I cannot speak
for ICANN, but my answer is Yes. There are many people in this
working group who have always viewed the "g" in gTLD as a not
very meaningful qualification. Fundamentally, this Working Group
is about adding new TLDs to the root of the domain name space.
The new TLDs should respond to market and administrative needs,
not to some preconceived notions about what is "generic" and what
isn't. The "g" in gTLD is just a way of distinguishing name
extensions from country code TLDs based on the ISO-3166 standard.
There is no precise or universally accepted definition of what
makes a TLD "generic" and there is nothing in our WG charter that
binds us to a particular definition.

In general, "managed or restricted TLDs" pose fewer trademark
problems than open TLDs, and therefore are much less
controversial. However, there are people who want to severely
restrict the number of TLDs that ICANN can create. Proposals such
as yours for limited-purpose TLDs will be the losers if they have
their way, because in a regime of artificial scarcity (e.g., the
current proposal for only 6-10 new TLDs) there will not be enough
room for many viable proposals.

The most important issue raised by your proposal is who decides
what is a "bank" and what criteria are used. That is, when you
speak of "membership based on an assigned and verified
certification," who does the assigning and verifying? In my
opinion (and again I do not speak for the WG as a whole, there is
no consensus on this although many others support this view)
ICANN as a domain name delegator should have absolutely nothing
to do with defining or approving the criteria.

Some people in the WG believe that if a new tld such as .BANK is
created, ICANN should define the name extension, and pick the
most appropriate agency to run it. In effect, ICANN becomes a
quasi-regulatory licensing agency with the authority to decide
who "deserves" to decide what is a bank. As ICANN has learned
with country code delegations, however, conferring official
status upon domain name registries embroils it in political
controversy. That is why others, including myself, take a more
free market approach to name delegations. We believe that ICANN
should simply accept, review, and coordinate applications to run
TLDs from registries, and make sure that their proposals are
technically sound. The management criteria and business models
for registrations should be up to the registry itself. In effect,
a managed TLD is simply a variant of a proprietary TLD, where the
registry operator determines the criteria for registration.

As a pure hypothetical, ICANN might give your agency .BANK simply
because you submitted a technically sound application and there
are no conflicting applications, but the delegation would not
mean that ICANN endorses .BANK as the "official" place for banks
to register. Whatever official status the TLD got would have to
be earned by the registry, based on its reputation among
consumers, the cooperation of the international banking
community, and so on.

I would encourage you to submit comments to ICANN expressing your
support for new TLDs. Comments can be submitted at

comments-gtlds@dnso.org