new gtld policy update - 11 April mtg and staff notes

[Milton L Mueller]

Thanks, Robin for this excellent summary of the challenging issues
before us. Are there any impending public comment opportunities to raise
these issues (especially the staff's alarming reintroduction of beauty
contests)? 

 

What we see here is a disturbing but somewhat predictable tendency to
create what you call "carve-outs" - special, privileged rules tailored
to specific interests that allow them to bypass the normal objections
process. So in addition to the already Byzantine and unpredictable
process we add another layer of carveouts. What a nightmare! 

 

________________________________

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:48 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] new gtld policy update - 11 April mtg and staff
notes

 

A few key issues were discussed at the new gtld policy meeting on 11
April in LA.   

 

Here are the 70 slides from the meeting:

 
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08
.pdf

 

1.  There is a question as to whether a TLD operator can expand its
business down the line in ways not outlines in its original application
for a TLD.  We have argued that TLD operators should not be straight
jacketed into their business plan 1.0 and should be allowed to expand
their use of the TLD in lawful ways.  Some in the business and registry
constituencies want for TLD operators to have to go back and receive
approval from ICANN every time they want to use the TLD in a new way. 

 

2.  Some want country names and their abbreviations to be off-limits to
anyone for use in a top-level domain.  There is a lot of pressure from
GAC to reserve words they would want to own.  The GNSO's response has
been GAC can object to any application like anyone else and take the
names it wants that way.  But there are still calls for a reserved name
list for country names and abbreviations.

 

3.  When two applicants want the same string, ICANN is proposing a
"beauty contest" method of determining who should be given the string.
This "comparison evaluation" was not in the GNSO's recommendations and
is something ICANN staff has created.  Many in the GNSO expressed
concern about this method, but it remains to be seen whether the GNSO
will have final say in what its recommendations are.  The beauty contest
criteria for deciding who is awarded a domain name include very
subjective and arbitrary evaluation criteria such as "provides value",
or is "important" to ICANN.

 

4.  The morality / public order string criteria continue to be
problematic.  There is some discussion as to who has standing to raise
an objection to a domain name based on morality and public order.   We
have argued that only governments should have such standing, but the
current wording of the recommendation opens it up for any one in the
world to object to a string based on morality and public order.    ICANN
will adopt a "one-size-fits-all" for standards of morality and public
order.  Very little information on this issue was given at the 11 April
mtg (only 1 slide of  70 slides).

 

5.  There will be a 3-part test for OBJECTIONS:

 For an objection to be successful in killing an application for a
domain name, the objector must prove that:

-       Community opposition to the application is substantial; AND

-       Community invoked is a coherent community; AND

-       There is a reasonable association between the community invoked
and the TLD string applied for.

6.  The trademark and business constituencies want special privileges
for software companies that would prohibit a TLD if it corresponds to a
file extension (like .doc or .pdf).  ICANN staff said it was told that
there were no technical problems with such a TLD, but the trademark
industry is still pushing for this and may get the special carve out.
At the meeting I argued that if there is a question of confusion, the
objection process should be used to solve that question.  Those
companies can go through the same process that everyone else must go
through to raise their objection based on likelihood of confusion.  But
the voices for the special carve-out are loud and well-funded; and the
contracting parties don't care much one way or another so will likely
give in to the pressure to create a presumption against a file extension
as a TLD.

 

 

7.  Chart of new gtld sting evaluation process:

 
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf

 

8.  And see also the attached briefing notes from ICANN staff of 14
April.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080422/61866e49/attachment.html>