ICANN/GNSO
DNSO and GNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] New compromise text - gTLDs


Bruce,
thank you for your comments on the gTLD report. I understand that you made clear that the content of these comments are done by you in your capacity as registrar's representative.
 
As chairman of the gTLDs committee, I support the change regarding the description of the objective criteria for expansion.  You suggest these should be the subject for a future PDP. I agree. The committee has no intent to circumvent a PDP. It was just doing what was asked of it.
 
I am however concerned about the reduction in these example criteria from 8 to 3. Specifically, let me comment on your suggested deletions:
1. Deletion - "Future expansion should increase the level of competition". You suggest that any extra name will automatically increase competition and therefore this criteria is unnecessary. This seems to mix the idea of choice and competition. Competition is a function on the offering and the supplier.
 
2. Deletion "names should be for commercial and non-commercial purposes".  You say this is a redundant.  Perhaps it is but given the oft expressed concern of the non-commercial constituency that their interests may be left out, it seems wise sometimes to state the obvious.
 
3. Deletion "Future names should add value to the namespace" . I am surprised about this deletion as it is one of the Lynn criteria which were explicitly supported in the Registrars paper. Are you saying that future names may well add NO value to the namespace?
 
4. IDNs - the text in the report was supplied by Jeff Neumann and Cary Carp from the gTLDs constituency after discussion. It seemed like a useful summary. The change you make about delayed implementation is a new undiscussed issue.  (If there remains concern with the text, I suggest we simply delete all reference to IDNs).
 
5.Deletion "differentiation" - you delete this on the grounds differentiation is achieved if names are not confusingly similar. These are separate concepts. It also disregards an important section of discussion on the committee. The concept of differentiation is central to the papers of the BC, IPC and ISPs. Support from "segmentation" was  given in discussion by a member of the Registrars. It was in the Lynn paper supported in the Registrars position. The latter half of the original paragraph picked up the finessing of the ALAC paper regarding differentiation.
 
The report submitted tried to capture the various sometimes competing views of participants. But I believe your edits go too far in erasing this diversity. In my capacity as chairman please find attached a proposed compromise text (v5) in which I pick up the procedural changes you make (link to PDP) but try to maintain a fuller list of elements considered by participants as worthy of inclusion in that PDP. Version 5 also contains the recent gTLD registries paper.
Philip
 
 

gTLDS committee conclusions v5.doc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>