Fwd: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Recommendations Summary

[Milton Mueller]

Mawaki:
My comments on the document

"2.5.1.1	ICANN will make a preliminary
determination on whether the application
complies with the string requirements and
may seek expert advice in order to make
its preliminary determination."

No. This is a recipe for further expansion of ICANN into an enormous
bureaucracy. ICANN must have a distinct list of non-allowed strings and
any fool should be able to check it to determine what is and is not
allowed. Anything that requires "expert advice" at this stage is by
definition a bad policy. E.g., if you don't allow one-letter strings,
that is a very easy rule to formulate and apply.

"2.5.2.1	The gTLD string should not be
confusingly similar to an existing TLD string.
Confusingly similar means there is a likelihood
of confusion on the part of the relevant public."

This is silly. The draft uses a word to define itself (confusing).
This should be better specified to restrict its application ONLY to
visual similarities of the sort that would lead to typo squatting; e.g.,
.com, .conn.

"2.5.2.4	The string should not... be in conflict
with national or international laws or cause
conflicts with public policy [for example, controversial, political,
cultural religious terms].  (Develop text related to public policy
issues with GAC assistance)."

Any elimination of "controversial" words is completely unacceptable
from a free expression perspective. Either it is against the law or it
is not. There is no "public policy" middle ground which means "it is not
illegal, but we (governments or other power holders) just don't like
it." Please put an end to this nonsense, MAwaki.

"2.7	An applicant must demonstrate that
they have the capability to operate a new gTLD
that meets the minimum technical criteria to preserve
the operational stability, reliability, security, and
global interoperability of the Internet."

This was obviously written by someone who knows nothing of how DNS
operates. There are no "Minimal technical criteria" for a TLD nameserver
that will "preserve the operational stability, reliability, security and
global interoperability of the Internet." This is an absurd conjunction
of phrases. One part of it calls for minimum technical criteria that
apply to one TLD nameserver, the other calls for sweeping global
assurances that apply to the entire Internet. You can specify that TLD
nameservers follow specific implementation standards. You can ask that
they do not take actions that threaten the entire Internet. But you
can't make them the same requirement. Get the engineers on the Council
to laugh this out of the house and come up with a meaningful
formulation.

"2.8	The applicant must provide a financial
and business plan that provides an assurance that
the applicant has the capability to meets its business
ambitions."

This is stupid, too. There can be no such assurances in the real world.
Either this criterion rules out ALL start-ups with an innovative idea,
or it is meaningless. ICANN has no business making TLD decisions on the
basis of business plans. ICANN is not a venture capital company. ICANN
can only reasonably ask for the possession of a certain amount of
capital, say about $100,000.

Entire section 3:
This is nonsense. What happened to auctions? If you have two or more
commercial applicants bidding for the same TLD string the obvious
solution is to hold an auction. It is also the fairest, quickest, and
most efficient way. I know that our constituency has favored auctions
for commercial TLDs, and that registrars have, so why has this idea
disappeared?

What you have here is a recipe for endless beauty contests and
incredible FCFS wars. Beauty contests is a method we KNOW doesn't work.
It has consumed enormous resources and produced bad decisions and
alienated almost everyone involved in it. Moreover, the reliance on FCFS
is really, really idiotic in this context. Can you imagine, given the
way registrars have developed extensive software tools to contend for
expoiring domains, how much will be invested in submitting TLD
applications, and how inundated ICANN will be with these requests?

>>> Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 9/14/2006 6:29:40 PM >>>
Attached, the "Amsterdam report" in progress from the staff.
Constructive and focused comments are welcome.

Mawaki

--- Liz Williams <liz.williams at icann.org> wrote:

> To: gtld-council at gnso.icann.org
> From: Liz Williams <liz.williams at icann.org>
> Subject: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05:  Draft Recommendations
> Summary
> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:31:51 +0200
>
>
> Colleagues
>
> Please find attached a DRAFT Recommendations Summary.  It is a
> working document which will be refined and completed as the
> Committee's Final Report is prepared.
>
> If you have comments or questions, please come back to me.  I would
>
> appreciate very much specific editing or contextual changes --
> please
> identify the recommendation number you are referring to send me
> specific text.  I will collate all the comments from the group and
>
> work out the best way forward.  I have read all the comments which
>
> have been circulating on the many lists and will work towards
> incorporating those where there is majority agreement.
>
> I will have this document posted as a working document on the GNSO
>
> website.
>
> Kind regards and, of course, any questions please ask.
>
> Liz
>
> > .....................................................
>
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
>
>
>
>
>