RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT

["Josh Elliott" <jelliott@tucows.com>]

Good work, Jon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 11:02 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT
>
>
> Folks --
>
> 	Members of the Names Council have requested that WG-C file a report
> **before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week** describing our initial
> conclusions.  Accordingly, I've drafted up a document.  This is a
> draft, to
> be rewritten in response to reactions from the list.  Because time is
> short, please give me your comments as quickly as you can, and in no event
> later than midnight UTC on Tuesday, March 7.  In addition to the
> redrafting
> process, if anybody wants to draft up a minority (dissenting) statement,
> please send it to me by midnight UTC on March 7, with the
> endorsement of at
> least five WG-C members, and I'll attach it.
>
> 	Thanks; I apologize for the short turnaround.
>
> Jon
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Report (Part One) of
> Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
> 	This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group C.
>  It sets out
> the rough consensus of the group regarding whether there should be new
> generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and if so, how quickly they should be
> added to the root as an initial matter.  Part Two of the Report,
> which will
> follow, will address other issues relating to the addition of new gTLDs.
>
> Introduction and summary
>
> 	Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues.
> The first is
> that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is that ICANN
> should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six to
> ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  This report will address
> each of these issues separately.  For each of the issues, it will
> summarize
> the discussions within the working group, arguments pro and con, and
> comments received from the public.
>
> Procedural and outreach history
>
> 	The Names Council approved the charter of Working Group C
> on June 25,
> 1999, and named Javier Sola as its chair.  On July 29, the working group
> members elected Jonathan Weinberg co-chair.  The working group currently
> has more than 140 members, not all of whom are active.  It includes
> extensive representation from each of the constituencies.  (There is one
> partial exception:  For most of the life of the working group, no NSI
> representative participated.  When WG-C's co-chair solicited greater
> participation from the Registry constituency, Don Telage
> explained that NSI
> had chosen not to involve itself in the WG-C process.  That
> representational gap has been filled now that Tony Rutkowski — an active
> WG-C member from the start — has joined NSI in a senior policymaking
> capacity.)
>
> 	On October 23, 1999, the Working Group released its Interim
> Report.  That
> report described the issues on which the Working Group had reached rough
> consensus to date.  It also included seven "position papers," setting out
> alternative scenarios for the introduction of new gTLDs.  On November 23,
> 1999, the Names Council formally requested public comment on the Interim
> Report.  This call for comments was publicized on a variety of mailing
> lists maintained by the DNSO, including ga-announce, ga, and liaison7c
> (which includes the constituency secretariats).  In addition, WG-C's
> co-chair spoke at the meetings of most of the constituencies at the Los
> Angeles ICANN meeting, and urged constituency members to file comments.
> Nearly 300 comments were filed in response to the interim report.  They
> included responses from leading members of all of the constituencies but
> two — the record does not include comments from the ccTLD or Registry
> constituencies (although ccTLD members and Mr. Rutkowski participated in
> the discussions that led to the Interim Report, and WG-C's co-chair
> expressly solicited the comments of both of those groups).
>
> Issue One — Should There Be New gTLDs?
>
> Discussions within the working group
>
> 	The working group quickly -- by mid-August, 1999 -- reached
> consensus that
> there should be new global top-level domains.  There was very little
> dissent from this position.
>
> Arguments supporting the consensus position
>
> 	Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice,
> and create
> opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current name
> structure.  Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more
> registrations than all other top-level domain names combined, and is  ten
> times the size of the largest ccTLD.  Yet it has become nearly impossible
> to register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year ago, in April
> 1999, a survey found that of 25,500 standard English-language dictionary
> words, only 1,760 were free in the .com domain.  Millions of additional
> names have been registered in .com since then.
>
> 	This situation is undesirable.  It requires companies to register
> increasingly unwieldy domain names for themselves, and is inflating the
> value of the secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names.
> Existing second-level domain names under the dot com TLD routinely change
> hands for enormously inflated prices. These are legitimate trades of
> ordinary, untrademarked words; their high prices reflect the artificial
> scarcity of common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on .com names
> in particular.
>
> 	Companies that currently have a domain name in the form of
> <www.companyname.com> have an extremely important marketing and
> name-recognition tool.  They have an advantage over all other companies
> that do not have addresses in that form, because the companyname.com firms
> are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most
> easily.  If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get
> easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to
> successful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered.  Addition
> of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have the same second-level
> domain name in different TLDs.  Those businesses will have to
> compete based
> on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which
> company locked up the most desirable domain name first.
>
> 	Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge
> noncommercial name space,
> and allow the creation of top-level domains designed to serve
> noncommercial
> goals.  One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in the public
> comments,
> advocated the creation of a new top-level domain to be operated for the
> benefit of North American indigenous peoples.  Other examples are easy to
> imagine.
>
> 	In response to the unsatisfied demand for new gTLD names,
> several ccTLD
> registries, including .nu, .cc, and .to, have transformed themselves into
> gTLDs, marketing their names globally as alternatives to .com, .net and
> .org.  This is undesirable from the perspective of protecting trademark
> rights, since no mechanisms are in place to ensure that these TLDs enact
> the same trademark-protective procedures (such as the UDRP) now
> in place in
> the gTLDs.  The transformation of ccTLDs into globally marketed commercial
> gTLDs deprives the local Internet community of the benefits of a
> ccTLD more
> closely oriented to serving that community.  To the extent that ICANN
> wishes to deploy new gTLDs subject to community-determined policy
> guidelines, finally, the growth of ccTLDs in response to pent-up
> demand for
> TLDs frustrates that goal.
>
> 	Creation of new generic top-level domains can be beneficial
> in other ways.
>  One proposal before WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation of
> multiple registries, each capable of managing registrations for multiple
> TLDs, so as to eliminate the single point of failure for the registration
> process.  Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are necessary to support the
> multiple registries needed for stability.
>
> 	Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an important part
> of ICANN's
> mandate.  ICANN was created because the institutions that preceded it were
> unable to resolve the intense political and economic conflicts created by
> demand for new top-level domain names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's
> White Paper saw the establishment of policy "for determining the
> circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system" as one of
> ICANN's fundamental goals.
>
> Arguments opposing the consensus position
>
> 	Three arguments were made, or suggested, in WG-C that cut
> against the
> addition of new gTLDs.  The first relates to trademark policing concerns:
> Expansion of the domain space will create additional opportunities for the
> registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to existing
> trademarks.  The relationship between domain names and trademark rights
> presents an important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed
> by registry data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms
> such as the UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt.
> Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are important ones, and
> not to be
> overlooked.  The argument that ICANN should impose substantial delays on
> the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or
> perfecting such mechanisms, however, did not win much support within the
> working group except among Intellectual Property constituency members.
>
> 	Second, some working group members suggested that an increase in the
> number of top- level domains could confuse consumers, because it would be
> harder for consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of
> top-level
> domains.  Notwithstanding requests, though, no working group
> member offered
> studies or other evidence backing up this view.
>
> 	Finally, some working group members suggested that the
> perceived need for
> new gTLDs was illusory.  For the reasons described above, it is the sense
> of the working group that that view is incorrect.
>
> Public comments
>
> 	The comments received by the working group fell into
> several categories.
> A few commenters questioned whether new gTLDs were indeed needed: this
> group included Bell Atlantic, Marilyn Cade and John Lewis (writing on
> behalf of some members of the Business & Commercial constituency).
>
> 	Some commenters took no position on whether new gTLDs
> should be added.
> Rather, they focused their comments on the position that deployment should
> be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution
> procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and
> protection for
> so-called famous marks.  These commenters included, among others, Jonathan
> Cohen, Dr. Victoria Carrington, AOL, British Telecom, Disney, INTA,
> Nintendo of America and Time Warner.  Comments noting the need for caution
> in deploying new gTLDs, but not explicitly referencing famous-marks
> protection, were filed by the Software and Information Industry
> Association
> (which supports adding new gTLDs, but only after the creation of a robust,
> responsive whois system), John Lewis (writing on behalf of some members of
> the Business and Commercial constituency), and Steve Metalitz.
>
> 	A third set of comments urged the addition of new gTLDs
> without further
> delay.  These commenters included, among others, Hiro Hotta (emphasizing
> that discussion of famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD
> rollout), Kathryn Kleiman, Michael Schneider, Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT, AXISNET (Peruvian
> Association of Users
> and ISPs), the United States Small Business Administration's Office of
> Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs, Tucows.com, InterAccess Company
> and   PSI-Japan.  Raul Echeberria filed comments urging that the
> establishment of new gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules
> should be devised to avoid massive speculative purchases of domains in the
> new TLDs, or trademark holders simply duplicating their existing domains.
>
> 	A fourth, and by far the largest, set of comments supported
> the creation
> of a specific proposed new domain: .NAA, proposed as a new gTLD to be run
> for the benefit of North American indigenous peoples.
>
>
> Issue Two — What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout?
>
> Discussions within the working group
>
> 	In September 1999, the WG-C co-chairs made the
> determination that the
> working group had reached rough consensus supporting a compromise proposal
> that the initial deployment of new gTLDs should include six to ten new
> gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  Because there had been no formal
> consensus call, though, the working group held a vote in December 1999 to
> reaffirm that consensus.  Following the lead of Working Group B, the
> working group determined in advance that a two-thirds margin would
> constitute adequate evidence of rough consensus.  The vote reaffirmed the
> compromise position as the rough consensus of the working group, by a
> margin of 44 to 20.  (A substantial number of working group
> members did not
> cast votes.  In addition, some working group members, having been
> solicited
> to vote, sent messages to the list explaining that they were declining to
> take a position at that time, and listed themselves as consequently
> abstaining.  Neither the non-voters nor the abstainers were counted in
> figuring the two-thirds majority.)
>
> 	Members of the working group had expressed sharply varying
> positions on
> the nature of the initial rollout.  Some working group members urged that
> ICANN should immediately announce its intention to authorize hundreds of
> new gTLDs over the course of the next few years.  While ICANN might
> interrupt that process if it observed serious problems with the rollout,
> the presumption would be in favor of deployment to the limits of the
> technically feasible and operationally stable.  If ICANN simply deployed a
> small number of new gTLDs with no commitment to add more, they argued, the
> public would have to make registration decisions based on the possibility
> that the small number of new gTLDs would be the only options.  This would
> give the new registries oligopoly power and the ability to earn
> greater-than-competitive profits; it would encourage pre-emptive and
> speculative registrations based on the possibility of continued artificial
> scarcity.  By contrast, they urged, an ICANN decision to deploy a large
> number of gTLDs would enable competition and a level playing field: If
> ICANN announced an intention to add hundreds of new gTLDs over a
> three-year
> period, no new registry could exercise market power based on the prospect
> of a continued artificial scarcity of names.
>
> 	Other working group members took the opposite approach.
> New gTLDs, they
> urged, could seriously aggravate the problems facing trademark
> rightsholders in the existing domain name space.  Accordingly, they urged,
> new gTLDs should be introduced only slowly and in a controlled manner, and
> only after effective trademark protection mechanisms had been implemented
> and shown to be effective.
>
> 	A third set of working group members took still another
> approach.  In the
> long term, they stated, it would be desirable for ICANN to allow the
> deployment of new gTLDs to the limits of the technically feasible and
> operationally stable.  As a short-term matter, however, the immediate
> deployment of hundreds of new TLDs would not be prudent.  The
> operationally
> safer course, rather, should be to deploy a smaller number, and to follow
> that deployment with an evaluation period during which the Internet
> community could see what lessons were to be learned from the initial
> deployment.  ICANN would go on to deploy additional TLDs if no serious
> problems arose in the initial rollout.  The initial deployment would be a
> testbed, in the sense that ICANN's decisions regarding the rollout of
> subsequent gTLDs would rest on that initial experience.
>
> 	The proposal that ICANN start by deploying six to ten new
> TLDs, followed
> by an evaluation period, was crafted as a compromise position to
> bridge the
> gap separating the three groups, and to enable a rough consensus
> to form in
> the middle ground.
>
> Arguments supporting the consensus position
>
> 	The consensus position has the advantage of being a
> compromise proposal
> supported by a wide range of working group members.  In a bottom-up,
> consensus-driven organization, broad agreement on a policy path
> is valuable
> for its own sake.  The sense of the bulk of the working group is that this
> proposal strikes an appropriate balance between aggressiveness
> and prudence
> in remedying the shortage of domain names.
>
> Arguments opposing the consensus position
>
> 	Three arguments were made in the working group against the
> proposal.  The
> first was that the contemplated initial deployment was too large; rather,
> some WG members urged, it would be appropriate, following the
> implementation of effective intellectual property protections,
> for ICANN to
> roll out no more than two or three new gTLDs.  Most WG members felt,
> however, that this figure was smaller than caution dictated, and that such
> a modest deployment would not give ICANN the information that it
> would need
> to make sensible later decisions.
>
> 	The second argument was that the contemplated initial
> deployment was too
> small: that, as detailed above, a deployment of only six to ten,
> without an
> upfront commitment to roll out many more, will be a half-measure
> that would
> grant oligopoly power to the lucky registries selected for the initial
> rollout.  This argument has considerable force.  Most of the working group
> members felt, however, that an initial commitment to many more than six to
> ten would not be operationally sound.  Until we see the consequences for
> the domain name space of adding new gTLDs, there are advantages to a more
> circumspect path.
>
> 	The final objection raised was that the consensus agreement
> answered the
> wrong question: The working group, said some, should not be addressing the
> number of new gTLDs at all before resolving such issues as whether the new
> top-level domains should be general-purpose (like .com), special-purpose,
> or some combination of the two.  The working group is currently addressing
> these issues (they will be discussed in Part Two of the WG's Report), and
> certainly it would not have been inappropriate for it to have sought to
> reach conclusions on those matters before discussing Issue Two.  But most
> members of the working group concluded that the path of resolving the
> nature of the initial deployment first was just as valid.
>
> Public comments
>
> 	As with Issue One, public comment on this issue was divided.  Bell
> Atlantic and Marilyn Cade supported the introduction of just a single new
> gTLD at the outset.  John Lewis, on behalf of some members of the Business
> & Commercial constituency, suggested the introduction of a very small
> number; British Telecom and Time Warner urged the initial rollout
> of only a
> few.  Other commenters, including Jonathan Cohen, Dr. Victoria Carrington,
> AOL, Disney and Nintendo of America, generally endorsed the statement that
> the introduction of new gTLDs should be slow and controlled, and should
> incorporate an evaluation period.
>
> 	By contrast, Hiro Hotta, Kathryn Kleiman, Michael
> Schneider, Computer
> Professionals for Social Responsibility, AXISNET, InterWorking Labs,
> Tucows.com and InterAccess Company supported the position that ICANN
> should, at the outset, announce a schedule for introducing hundreds of new
> TLDs.  The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
> concluded
> that ICANN should start with a limited introduction of new TLDs
> followed by
> an evaluation period, but that ICANN should announce in advance that it
> would continue with a steady introduction of additional TLDs so long as
> pre-announced technical criteria were met.  Raul Echeberria, by contrast,
> emphasized that ICANN should evaluate the operation and market acceptance
> of the TLDs added in the initial rollout before creating or announcing
> more.  Melbourne IT, PSI-Japan and Register.com all supported the
> compromise position of an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs followed
> by an evaluation period.
>
> --------------
>
> 	A detailed summary of the public comments on Issues One and Two is
> available at <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00490.html>.

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html