DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[gtld-com] Re: [council] Comments from gTLD Constituency on Current gTLDCommittee draft

In preparation for our teleconference, I would like to make
clear my reaction to Jeff Neuman's points below. I agree with 
many of the points.

>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> 04/08/03 11:12PM >>>
>We note that with respect to IDN generic top-level domains (i.e., 
>IDN.IDN),ICANN should try to ensure that the ASCII translation 
>of any new generic IDN top-level should not be confusingly similar 
>an already existing generic ASCII top-level domain (also known as 
>transliterations of existing names) so as to confuse net users.  

This is an important point, but it is also debatable. There is in 
fact no perfect semantic correspondence between ascii-english and
most other scripts. It is therefore not clear to me why, say, a
Chinese-character TLD meaning "network" should not be available
to a new Chinese applicant simply because a U.S. company already
runs ".net". Nor is it obvious that most users (who are not readers 
of both languages) would be confused by two such domains even 
if they are transliterations. Most importantly, do we want to 
encourage the notion that anyone who has, say, a .com domain 
must register their name in transliterated form under a <chinese 
character> TLD roughly meaning "company?"
>Also, doesn't the fact that someone applies to manage the
>new gTLD namespace demonstrate in and of itself that demand 
>exists for the new name space?  If there is an applicant willing 
>to invest in the space and take on the risks associated with 
>introducing a namespace, should that not be enough?  

Yes, we totally agree. What you say above is exactly what NCUC 
meant by "demand driven." We do NOT mean that ICANN staff or 
board conducts market analysis as a central planner and decides 
for the world what there is demand for.
>Number 7:  
>like more clarification on what is meant by the following sentence:
>"However, in order to meet the goal on competition, this flexibility 
>will need to be limited to the extent that it might lead to barriers to 

Agree that this is unclear. I also think it is ambiguous what is 
meant by "a registry need not be linked uniquely with one name."

>Number 8 The committee may wish to use the words "To 
>the extent that a TLD is sponsored..."


>Number 9:  The gTLD Constituency believes that stating that all 
>registries be required to "demonstrate financial competence" is 
>fraught with ambiguity. 

Agree. There really is little or no need for ICANN to be 
concerned with the financial capabilities of registries,
this is something that has to be sorted out in the market.
Some kind of a simple, uniform performance bond might be a
better solution. 

> Number 10:  First, the gTLD Constituency believes that the 
>committee should avoid using the word "bid" since such term 
>implies that ICANN will be using an auction process.  

You mean you don't agree that there is near-unanimous
consensus on the use of auctions? 

>Number 11:  This statement seems ambiguous.  

I don't think it's ambiguous, I just think it's wrong. ICANN
can encourage various forms of "industry best practice" that
minimize the costs of failure, but it has no obligation to 
protect registrants against registry failure. No one has to
register in a new registry. Failure of a major, established 
registry would be a serious problem, but there is no way
ICANN can prevent that, or anticipate its consequences at
the point of market entry. 

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