[council] New gtld process

[Milton Mueller]

Hi, Bruce:
As someone who has researched in some depth the issue of
new TLD creation, both in my private capacity as Professor
and as part of the U.S. National Research Council committee 
(note I do NOT speak for anyone on the committee or the
committee itself), I find it difficult to agree with your statements 
below.

Here's why:

The upshot of your message, Bruce, is that 4 or 5 multi-year 
studies need to be done before any new TLD process can be put 
in place. Isn't that it? And if you read the White Paper five years ago, 
some of the same attitudes were advanced. It called for the same
reports on TLD impact on IPR. That was in 1998. And if you read the 
statements made at the time of the first round in 2000, similar 
statements were made - TLD addition was a "proof of concept" and 
numerous "studies" had to be done before any progress could be made. 
Where are those studies? 

This is getting ridiculous. 

We know that the IPR interests don't want any new TLDs, and 
haven't for years - although it is abundantly clear from the first round 
that no real threats to trademarks exist; indeed, "sunrise" and other 
forms of regulation gave them rights to generic terms that no trademark 
law in history has ever given them. We know that incumbent 
registries don't want new TLDs, because the market is not as
lucrative as they thought and they fear new competition. 
How much information do you need to know that a market
80% controlled by one supplier and about 95% controlled by
businesses in one country is too concentrated? 

We also know that there are willing suppliers of new registry services,
people who have been waiting for three - six years, and
we know that there are people who are willing to patronize
those new servces because they want different names. 

I think we know enough.

ICANN doesn't need any more information to _define a procedure_
for accepting applications and selecting new TLD proposals. It
might need some details to _implement_ a procedure,
but defining the procedure requires action and commitment, not 
two or three more years of waiting for information. This is a delaying
tactic and everyone knows it. 

>- a full assessment of technical standards to support multilingual TLD's
>by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 

I am not sure what this "full assessment" means. Please clarify.
Are you simply saying that the IAB has not approved the final
standard for IDNs? Are you saying that the IETF doesn't know what
it's doing? How can you "fully assess" a standard without
implementing it? 

>- an assessment of the introduction of competition into the TLD market
>and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible
>appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship to be
>provided by an international economics organization 

Assigning TLDs is a core part of ICANN's job; if such a basic
function has to be outsourced it raises doubts about whether
ICANN should exist as an organization. 

It is not ICANN's job to decide (for consumers and suppliers) 
whether competition is economically desirable. Its job is to define a 
procedure that allows businesses or nonprofits that want to enter the 
market to enter, and users/consumers can decide for themselves whether 
to patronize them. 

>- a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the
>introduction of a new TLD shall be requested from the World Intellectual
>Property Organization 

Again? Give me a break. 

>- reports regarding the technical stability issues related to the
>introduction of new TLDs including contingency planning to ensure
>continuity of registry services from the IAB and ICANN's Security and
>Stability Committee (SECSAC) 

Ah the "stability" mantra. That one's been used before, too. 

There is nothing at all mysterious about adding TLDs
to the DNS root. It has happened over a hundred times. The DNS was
designed to allow zone files to be regularly updated and changed. 

There is NO noticable impact of the 6 new 
gtLDs on root service. In the technical community, the idea of
adding 50 or so new TLDs per year is considered "conservative." 
See my paper on this. 
http://intel.si.umich.edu/tprc/archive-search-abstract.cfm?PaperID=175

Other than fixing the number there are few serious technical 
issues. Continuity is a much bigger issue for EXISTING
registries - what has ICANN done about that? 

>an independent review of consumer protection issues from a consumer
>protection body will be requested 

Isn't it amazing that ICANN shows so much solicitude for 
consumers when consumer protection can be used as a pretext
for excluding people from the market - but no solicitude at all when
real consumer interests are at stake, such as UDRP, Whois, 
new TLD competition....etc., etc.

Real scholars have studied this thing to death. It's just that the
message is one that the powers that be within ICANN don't want
to hear. If you like, I can get experts from the FCC to make presentations 
on the advantages of auctions over discretionary hearings in awarding 
exclusive assignments. The NRC report will be out in a few months.
The Berkman Center has done research on registrations within
new TLDs. There is all kinds of information you can draw on, if
you want to. The only real issue is whether ICANN wants to 
continue suppressing market entry or not. 

--MM