<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All: I appreciate Mawaki gathering together the NCUC's submission for the gTLD proceeding. Basic documents are posted at <A HREF="www.gnso.icann.org">www.gnso.icann.org</A> under <B><A HREF="http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm">Call for Papers -- Policy Development for Introduction of New gTLDs, if you want to see the papers or comments submitted to date.</A></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><U><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B></U><BR>
Great thanks to Milton on starting on this discussion. On January 2, taking no time to recover from New Years festivities, he posted a draft set of comments. His comments are posted on our NCUC website at <A HREF="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=250">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=250</A>.<BR>
<BR>
I share my thoughts and edits below. Overall, I agree completely with Milton, and think we should take his comments one step further. We should warn the GNSO Council about the Business/Intellectual drive to allow only sponsored top level domains (.MUSEUM, etc) and the new push from them to allow only "one-company" top level domains -- .DISNEY and .O (Overstock.com) are being discussed. These groups are staunchly opposed to opening up the gTLD process to the general top level domains that would serve our communities. <BR>
<BR>
Also, let's not get personal about those who oppose us (at least, not yet). We can take the high ground with Milton's clean, clear approach that ICANN should adopt a few basic technical rules to protect the Internet, and then open the process of choosing new top level domains to a market-oriented, open one (so let's delete the paragraphs about ccTLDs).<BR>
<BR>
My comments below (and also attached in a text document). My proposals for additions and changes to Milton's comments are in CAPS. Thanks again to Milton and Mawaki.<BR>
<BR>
Regards, Kathy<BR>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY COMMENTS<BR>
SUBMITTED TO THE GNSO <BR>
IN RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR COMMENTS IN THE NEW gTLD<BR>
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS <BR>
<BR>
THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY HAS DULY<BR>
CONSIDERED THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE GNSO<BR>
IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT OUR<BR>
COMMENTS BELOW. <BR>
<BR>
1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? <BR>
<BR>
ABSOLUTELY. ICANN WAS CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF<BR>
OVERSEEING [some words deleted here] a well-defined, efficient and fair<BR>
TLD addition process. It is time to open up that process as quickly and as<BR>
broadly as possible.<BR>
<BR>
THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY SUBMITS THAT<BR>
THE domain name market, like the Internet itself, MUST NOT be frozen or<BR>
static. A refusal to add any new gTLDs is not an option. The operation of<BR>
gTLD registries is currently confined to a tiny handful of operators in the<BR>
countries where the Internet developed first (mostly the U.S.). About 80% of<BR>
the gTLD market is concentrated in the hands of one operator.<BR>
<BR>
The introduction of "internationalized" or multilingual DNS and the growth<BR>
of the Internet in developing countries with different scripts, cultures, and<BR>
naming ideas AMONG OTHER GOOD PRESSURES will inevitably<BR>
create legitimate demand for new gTLDs. <BR>
<BR>
[PARAGRAPHS REORDERED BELOW]<BR>
As a technical coordinator, ICANN MUST accommodate demands for new<BR>
gTLDs as long as there are no adverse technical consequences. We know for a<BR>
fact that periodic addition of THE limited number of new TLDs TO DATA<BR>
has NOT CREATE ANY adverse technical consequences (SOURCE: <BR>
experience and expert studies such as the U.S. National Research Council<BR>
study "Signposts in Cyberspace.") Any attempt to shut the door on the rest of<BR>
the world at this time is not viable from a political or economic standpoint.<BR>
<BR>
OVERALL, ICANN must not shut off the opportunity for new businesses and<BR>
new constituency groups to propose and operate new gTLDs. To do so would<BR>
be to permanently block two-thirds of the world from the expertise and wealth<BR>
that can be gained from participation in this industry, and subject most of the<BR>
world to the market power of ccTLDs or the current dominant operator. As<BR>
long as there is growth in the Internet, there will be interest in A BROAD<BR>
RANGE OF new gTLD names. <BR>
<BR>
2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains <BR>
<BR>
a. [Questions: develop modified or new criteria which specifically address<BR>
ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular,<BR>
examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet<BR>
demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.]<BR>
<BR>
THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY REJECTS the<BR>
premise of this statement. ICANN has no mandate in its mission or core<BR>
values to "expand the use and usability of the Internet." ICANN does,<BR>
however, have the promotion of competition as one of its core values (see<BR>
Section 2, Core Values No. 5 and 6 in the ICANN Bylaws). Fundamentally, IT<BR>
IS ICANN's job to coordinate the unique technical parameters of Internet<BR>
identifiers in a way that fosters the openness, diversity and competitiveness of<BR>
the domain name registration market. <BR>
<BR>
The best way to do this is to make ICANN's selection criteria as simple,<BR>
predictable and content-neutral as possible. SUCH A POLITICS-FREE<BR>
ENVIRONMENT WOULD MAKE it MUCH easier for innovators to propose<BR>
and implement new ideas. NGOs, entrepreneurs and applicants from<BR>
developing countries (and elsewhere) MUST be allowed to come up with their<BR>
own ideas for new TLD names and business models. ICANN'S ROLE<BR>
COULD AND SHOULD BE SIMPLE: TO provide a predictable, fair and<BR>
efficient process by which those ideas can be accepted or rejected, coordinated<BR>
and implemented. <BR>
<BR>
The NCUC FURTHER submits that ICANN's only role in the acceptance<BR>
process SHOULD BE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GTLD<BR>
APPLICATION MEETS THE minimal technical and operational criteria<BR>
THAT THE GNSO AND ICANN TOGETHER SHOULD ESTABLISH,<BR>
THUS ENSURING that registry operations do not harm the global<BR>
compatibility of the DNS. <BR>
<BR>
b. [Question: Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored)<BR>
could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of<BR>
addressing the needs of Internet users.]<BR>
<BR>
SPONSORED TOP LEVEL DOMAINS PROVED A VALUABLE, AND AT<BR>
THE TIME CONTROVERSIAL, POINT. THEY SHOWED<BR>
DEFINITIVELY THAT THE INTERNET AND DNS SURVIVES AND<BR>
THRIVES WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDS. THE NCUC<BR>
SUBMITS THAT SPONSORED gTLDs ARE A BEGINNING, AND MUST<BR>
NOT BE AN END.<BR>
<BR>
[DELETE: While NCUC has always supported the concept of sponsored<BR>
domains,]<BR>
<BR>
The Noncommercial Users Constituency finds it unnecessary and overly<BR>
restrictive TO BUILD sponsored-unsponsored concept into ICANN's<BR>
PERMANENT FRAMEWORK OF NEW registry contracts. WE<BR>
EXPRESSLY SUPPORT A MARKET-DRIVEN APPROACH TO NEW<BR>
GTLDS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE INTERNET USERS,<BR>
ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES WORLDWIDE TO COME<BR>
FORWARD TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY WITH THEIR IDEAS. <BR>
<BR>
The NCUC EXPRESSLY DOES NOT SUPPORT any attempt to declare<BR>
SPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES TO BE BETTER THAN<BR>
UNSPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES. IN PARTICULAR, WE WARN THE<BR>
GNSO TO BE WARY OF THE GROWING PUSH FOR NEW GTLDS<BR>
THAT WILL BE OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY BY OR FOR A SINGLE<BR>
COMPANY. THIS MODEL, WHICH WE TITLE A "SUPER-<BR>
SPONSORED" TOP LEVEL DOMAIN, SERVES NO GENERAL<BR>
COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC INTEREST. <BR>
<BR>
IT is for individual users to decide for themselves, by selecting when and<BR>
where to register. ICANN's role is not to tilt the Internet community's<BR>
preferences in one way or the other, ESPECIALLY NOT TO FAVOR<BR>
SPONSORED TLDS OVER UNSPONSORED. ICANN'S CLEAR ROLE IS<BR>
to coordinate the introduction of ALL new gTLDs IN A WAY THAT BOTH<BR>
PRESERVES GLOBAL DNS COMPATIBILITY, ALLOWS BROAD AND<BR>
DECENTRALIZED INNOVATION AND EXPANSION, AND GIVES ALL<BR>
A CLEAR SENSE THAT A SINGLE ROOT BROADLY SERVES<BR>
INTERNET COMMUNITIES WORLDWIDE. <BR>
<BR>
c. [QUESTIONS: Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed<BR>
which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the<BR>
Internet.]<BR>
<BR>
THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY SUBMITS THAT<BR>
ANY CRITERIA ADOPTED BY ICANN MUST BE carefully targeted TO<BR>
issues that are part of ICANN's core mission and competence,<BR>
SPECIFICALLY global DOMAIN NAME compatibility.<BR>
<BR>
NCUC STRONGLY SUBMITS THAT ICANN should develop a simple and<BR>
objective "registry accreditation" process, similar to the registrar accreditation<BR>
process. WE SUBMIT THERE should be fewer criteria, not more. <BR>
<BR>
3. [Question: Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains]<BR>
<BR>
ICANN AND OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY LEARNED from OUR<BR>
PAINFUL past experience that the comparative evaluation or "beauty contest"<BR>
model METHOD OF PICKING NEW TOP LEVEL<BR>
DOMAINS/REGISTRIES is slow, politicized, manipulable and unpredictable,<BR>
no matter how carefully it is administered. The results have been disastrous. <BR>
<BR>
THE CURRENT SELECTION PROCESS BADLY HURT THE<BR>
REPUTATION OF ICANN BECAUSE SO MANY QUESTION THE RIGHT<BR>
OF A few committees of 3 or 4 "experts" (mostly composed of a tiny core of<BR>
ICANN-affiliated people) TO decide for a vast, diverse global market which<BR>
names are desirable and legitimate [SOME WORDS DELETED]. <BR>
FURTHER, ICANN's political supervisors in the U.S. and GAC have clearly<BR>
demonstrated to the world that a discretionary selection process can be and<BR>
will be manipulated, as pressure will be placed on the ICANN Board and staff<BR>
by political interests and vested economic interests. <BR>
<BR>
Under ICANN's current method, applicants for new TLDs are always subject<BR>
to insider lobbying by incumbents and must bargain individually with staff.<BR>
THE LEGAL COSTS THEY INCUR FOR SUCH LOBBYING UNFAIRLY<BR>
RAISE THE BAR OF ENTRY ONLY TO THOSE WITH STRONG AND<BR>
WELL-FUNDED AMERICAN CONNECTIONS.<BR>
<BR>
The only escape route from this disaster is a completely neutral and objective<BR>
process, such as lotteries and auctions. IN PARTICULAR, SUPER-<BR>
SPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD BE AUCTIONED, AND<BR>
THOSE SURVIVING GENERAL AND/OR NONCOMMERCIAL<BR>
COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED BY LOTTERY. THESE<BR>
Objective, non-discriminatory methods ARE pro-competitive AND THEY<BR>
WILL vastly reduce costs for new entrants by making it clear to applicants<BR>
what they have to do to get a TLD, what are the anticipated expenses and what<BR>
is the time line.<BR>
<BR>
[I WOULD RECOMMEND DELETING THIS ENTIRE SECTION ABOUT<BR>
CCTLDS. I THINK WE MAKE OUR POINT INVOLVING THE<BR>
OPENNESS THAT WE NEED, ETC, AND THAT THE PARAGRAPH<BR>
BELOW WARNS US OF WHAT WE NEED TO BE STRATEGICALLY<BR>
AWARE OF. I DON'T THINK IT SERVES OUR DIPLOMATIC<BR>
INTERESTS TO HIGHLIGHT ONE PARTICULAR GROUP (OF MANY)<BR>
THAT OPPOSES NEW GTLDS.<BR>
Looking forward, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the influence<BR>
of ccTLD managers, many of whom have openly stated to us their desire to<BR>
stop any new gTLDs because they view them as threats to their own revenue<BR>
stream and market share. CcTLD monopolies are particularly dangerous to<BR>
ICANN's core value of competition because many of them are closely<BR>
connected to their governments, who can use national regulation and<BR>
international intergovernmental institutions (including GAC) to achieve<BR>
protectionist goals. While we highly value ccTLDs as a source of localism and<BR>
diversity in policy and service, and as a source of national identity to Internet<BR>
users, we are very concerned about an ICANN TLD selection process that<BR>
gives them - or any incumbent - the opportunity to block users from exercising<BR>
free choice in the domain name market. This is not a criticism of the ccTLD<BR>
managers themselves, who are only pursuing their self-interest. It is a criticism<BR>
of an ICANN allocation method that permits established players in a market to<BR>
influence who else gets to enter. <BR>
<BR>
4. [QUESTION: Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level<BR>
Domains]<BR>
<BR>
THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY FAVORS A<BR>
SIMPLE, template registry contract that is uniformly applicable to all<BR>
registries. We oppose individual negotiation between ICANN and prospective<BR>
TOP LEVEL DOMAIN contractees. We believe that the GNSO should set<BR>
general policy guiding the contracts - INCLUDING whether there should be<BR>
price caps or not, or a renewal expectancy or not - and that the ICANN staff<BR>
should translate those policies into generally applicable contractual terms. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>