New gTLDs policy development process -- comments and edits

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

All:  I appreciate Mawaki gathering together the NCUC's submission for the
gTLD proceeding.  Basic documents are posted at www.gnso.icann.org under Call
for Papers -- Policy Development for Introduction of New gTLDs, if you want to
see the papers or comments submitted to date.

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
http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=250.

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.

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).

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.

Regards, Kathy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY COMMENTS
SUBMITTED TO THE GNSO
IN RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR COMMENTS IN THE NEW gTLD
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY HAS DULY
CONSIDERED THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE GNSO
IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT OUR
COMMENTS BELOW.

1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?

ABSOLUTELY.  ICANN WAS CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OVERSEEING [some words deleted here] a well-defined, efficient and fair
TLD addition process.   It is time to open up that process as quickly and as
broadly as possible.

THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY SUBMITS THAT
THE domain name market, like the Internet itself, MUST NOT be frozen or
static. A refusal to add any new gTLDs is not an option. The operation of
gTLD registries is currently confined to a tiny handful of operators in the
countries where the Internet developed first (mostly the U.S.). About 80% of
the gTLD market is concentrated in the hands of one operator.

 The introduction of "internationalized" or multilingual DNS and the growth
of the Internet in developing countries with different scripts, cultures, and
naming ideas   AMONG OTHER GOOD PRESSURES    will inevitably
create legitimate demand for new gTLDs.

[PARAGRAPHS REORDERED BELOW]
As a technical coordinator, ICANN MUST accommodate demands for new
gTLDs as long as there are no adverse technical consequences. We know for a
fact that periodic addition of THE  limited number of new TLDs TO DATA
has NOT CREATE ANY adverse technical consequences (SOURCE:
experience and expert studies such as the U.S. National Research Council
study "Signposts in Cyberspace.") Any attempt to shut the door on the rest of
the world at this time is not viable from a political or economic standpoint.

OVERALL, ICANN must not shut off the opportunity for new businesses and
new constituency groups to propose and operate new gTLDs. To do so would
be to permanently block two-thirds of the world from the expertise and wealth
that can be gained from participation in this industry, and subject most of
the
world to the market power of ccTLDs or the current dominant operator. As
long as there is growth in the Internet, there will be interest in A BROAD
RANGE OF new gTLD names.

2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains

a. [Questions:  develop modified or new criteria which specifically address
ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In
particular,
examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet
demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.]

THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY REJECTS the
premise of this statement. ICANN has no mandate in its mission or core
values to "expand the use and usability of the Internet." ICANN does,
however, have the promotion of competition as one of its core values (see
Section 2, Core Values No. 5 and 6 in the ICANN Bylaws). Fundamentally, IT
IS ICANN's job to coordinate the unique technical parameters of Internet
identifiers in a way that fosters the openness, diversity and competitiveness
of
the domain name registration market.

The best way to do this is to make ICANN's selection criteria as simple,
predictable and content-neutral as possible. SUCH A POLITICS-FREE
ENVIRONMENT WOULD MAKE it MUCH easier for innovators to propose
and implement new ideas. NGOs, entrepreneurs and applicants from
developing countries (and elsewhere) MUST be allowed to come up with their
own ideas for new TLD names and business models.  ICANN'S ROLE
COULD AND SHOULD BE SIMPLE: TO provide a predictable, fair and
efficient process by which those ideas can be accepted or rejected,
coordinated
and implemented.

The NCUC FURTHER submits that ICANN's only role in the acceptance
process SHOULD BE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GTLD
APPLICATION MEETS THE minimal technical and operational criteria
THAT THE GNSO AND ICANN TOGETHER SHOULD ESTABLISH,
THUS ENSURING that registry operations do not harm the global
compatibility of the DNS.

b. [Question:  Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g.
sponsored)
could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of
addressing the needs of Internet users.]

SPONSORED TOP LEVEL DOMAINS PROVED A VALUABLE, AND AT
THE TIME CONTROVERSIAL, POINT.  THEY SHOWED
DEFINITIVELY THAT THE INTERNET AND DNS SURVIVES AND
THRIVES WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDS.   THE NCUC
SUBMITS THAT SPONSORED gTLDs ARE A BEGINNING, AND MUST
NOT BE AN END.

[DELETE: While NCUC has always supported the concept of sponsored
domains,]

The Noncommercial Users Constituency finds it unnecessary and overly
restrictive TO BUILD sponsored-unsponsored concept into ICANN's
PERMANENT FRAMEWORK OF NEW registry contracts.   WE
EXPRESSLY SUPPORT A MARKET-DRIVEN APPROACH TO NEW
GTLDS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE INTERNET USERS,
ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES WORLDWIDE TO COME
FORWARD TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY WITH THEIR IDEAS.

The NCUC EXPRESSLY DOES NOT SUPPORT any attempt to declare
SPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES TO BE BETTER THAN
UNSPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES.  IN PARTICULAR, WE WARN THE
GNSO TO BE WARY OF THE GROWING PUSH FOR NEW GTLDS
THAT WILL BE OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY BY OR FOR A SINGLE
COMPANY.  THIS MODEL, WHICH WE TITLE A "SUPER-
SPONSORED" TOP LEVEL DOMAIN, SERVES NO GENERAL
COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC INTEREST.

IT is for individual users to decide for themselves, by selecting when and
where to register. ICANN's role is not to tilt the Internet community's
preferences in one way or the other, ESPECIALLY NOT TO FAVOR
SPONSORED TLDS OVER UNSPONSORED.  ICANN'S CLEAR ROLE IS
to coordinate the introduction of ALL new gTLDs IN A WAY THAT BOTH
PRESERVES GLOBAL DNS COMPATIBILITY, ALLOWS BROAD AND
DECENTRALIZED INNOVATION AND EXPANSION, AND GIVES ALL
A CLEAR SENSE THAT A SINGLE ROOT BROADLY SERVES
INTERNET COMMUNITIES WORLDWIDE.

c. [QUESTIONS:  Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed
which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the
Internet.]

THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY SUBMITS THAT
ANY CRITERIA ADOPTED BY ICANN MUST BE carefully targeted TO
issues that are part of ICANN's core mission and competence,
SPECIFICALLY global DOMAIN NAME compatibility.

NCUC STRONGLY SUBMITS THAT ICANN should develop a simple and
objective "registry accreditation" process, similar to the registrar
accreditation
process. WE SUBMIT THERE should be fewer criteria, not more.

3. [Question: Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains]

ICANN AND OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY LEARNED from OUR
PAINFUL past experience that the comparative evaluation or "beauty contest"
model METHOD OF PICKING NEW TOP LEVEL
DOMAINS/REGISTRIES is slow, politicized, manipulable and unpredictable,
no matter how carefully it is administered. The results have been disastrous.


THE CURRENT SELECTION PROCESS BADLY HURT THE
REPUTATION OF ICANN BECAUSE SO MANY QUESTION THE RIGHT
OF A few committees of 3 or 4 "experts" (mostly composed of a tiny core of
ICANN-affiliated people) TO decide for a vast, diverse global market which
names are desirable and legitimate [SOME WORDS DELETED].
FURTHER, ICANN's political supervisors in the U.S. and GAC have clearly
demonstrated to the world that a discretionary selection process can be and
will be manipulated, as pressure will be placed on the ICANN Board and staff
by political interests and vested economic interests.

Under ICANN's current method, applicants for new TLDs are always subject
to insider lobbying by incumbents and must bargain individually with staff.
THE LEGAL COSTS THEY INCUR FOR SUCH LOBBYING UNFAIRLY
RAISE THE BAR OF ENTRY ONLY TO THOSE WITH STRONG AND
WELL-FUNDED AMERICAN CONNECTIONS.

The only escape route from this disaster is a completely neutral and
objective
process, such as lotteries and auctions. IN PARTICULAR, SUPER-
SPONSORED DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD BE AUCTIONED, AND
THOSE SURVIVING GENERAL AND/OR NONCOMMERCIAL
COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED BY LOTTERY.  THESE
Objective, non-discriminatory methods ARE pro-competitive AND THEY
WILL vastly reduce costs for new entrants by making it clear to applicants
what they have to do to get a TLD, what are the anticipated expenses and what
is the time line.

[I WOULD RECOMMEND DELETING THIS ENTIRE SECTION ABOUT
CCTLDS.  I THINK WE MAKE OUR POINT INVOLVING THE
OPENNESS THAT WE NEED, ETC, AND THAT THE PARAGRAPH
BELOW WARNS US OF WHAT WE NEED TO BE STRATEGICALLY
AWARE OF.  I DON'T THINK IT SERVES OUR DIPLOMATIC
INTERESTS TO HIGHLIGHT ONE PARTICULAR GROUP (OF MANY)
THAT OPPOSES NEW GTLDS.
Looking forward, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the influence
of ccTLD managers, many of whom have openly stated to us their desire to
stop any new gTLDs because they view them as threats to their own revenue
stream and market share. CcTLD monopolies are particularly dangerous to
ICANN's core value of competition because many of them are closely
connected to their governments, who can use national regulation and
international intergovernmental institutions (including GAC) to achieve
protectionist goals. While we highly value ccTLDs as a source of localism and
diversity in policy and service, and as a source of national identity to
Internet
users, we are very concerned about an ICANN TLD selection process that
gives them - or any incumbent - the opportunity to block users from
exercising
free choice in the domain name market. This is not a criticism of the ccTLD
managers themselves, who are only pursuing their self-interest. It is a
criticism
of an ICANN allocation method that permits established players in a market to
influence who else gets to enter.

4. [QUESTION:  Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level
Domains]

THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY FAVORS A
SIMPLE, template registry contract that is uniformly applicable to all
registries. We oppose individual negotiation between ICANN and prospective
TOP LEVEL DOMAIN contractees. We believe that the GNSO should set
general policy guiding the contracts - INCLUDING whether there should be
price caps or not, or a renewal expectancy or not - and that the ICANN staff
should translate those policies into generally applicable contractual terms.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20060125/83754bdb/attachment.html>