RE: [registrars] Structure for new gtlds

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

Hi,

The NCUC view is something that I would partialy favour too (except for
a few nitty-gritties). I am more towards a - "let market decide and
ICANN Accredit" policy. ICANN could simply lay down rules such as -

* number of TLDs of various types that it is willing to accredit every
year
* minimal financial/technical/business guidelines
* process in case of conflict of applications

Offcourse - this sounds slightly esoteric to me, I am sure significant
issues would need to be addressed apart from just the above. But
nevertheless it is an important topic which we should have a position on

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:19 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Structure for new gtlds
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> The registrars constituency is yet to form a view on how to 
> structure the gtld namespace for new gtlds.
> 
> The business constituency has apparently formed a position.
> 
> Attached is the views of the non-commercial constituency.
> 
> It would good to receive some comments from registrars on 
> this issue. Personally I am learning more towards the 
> non-commercial constituency view. ie let the market decide, 
> ensure that new registries meet some technical standards of 
> performance and reliability, and use an auction process where 
> there is contention for the same gtld.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> NCUC Statement on New TLDs. 
> 
> V 1.2, 18 February 2003
> Approved by Adcom 24 Feb 2003
> 
> In response to CEO Stuart Lynn's call for policy guidance, a 
> GNSO Council Committee has adopted a document defining a 
> policy approach to new TLDs. That policy is based on a 
> Business Constituency position paper defining a restrictive 
> approach to name space management. 
> 
> The proposal is inimical to the interests of most domain name 
> users. If implemented it would have the following negative effects:
>  
> 1.		It would dramatically raise the cost of domain 
> name registration in new TLDs 
> 2.		It would limits users' choice of an online 
> identity and thwart any attempt to introduce popular new 
> names that responded to real user demand
> 3.		It would bring a halt to competition in the 
> registry market
> 4.		It would defeat any attempt to innovate by 
> tailoring registry architecture and technology to specific markets
> 	
> 	The claimed benefits of this approach do not exist:
> 5.		It would not help preserve user service when 
> registries fail
> 6.		It would not have any beneficial effect on 
> users' ability to find things on the Internet
> 	
> 	The NCUC supports a demand-driven approach to TLD 
> additions. ICANN should allow new names to be proposed by 
> interested communities, entrepreneurial registry operators, 
> or a combination of both. We believe that ICANN should define 
> a process that permits addition of a maximum of 30 new TLDs 
> each year. Five of these 30 should be reserved for 
> noncommercial user groups. ICANN's assessment of these 
> applications should be based on adherence to a minimal set of 
> ICANN-defined technical specifications and conformity to 
> established ICANN policies, such as UDRP. Approving a TLD 
> should be - and could be - as simple as accrediting a 
> registry. Whether the business models proposed were 
> "sponsored" or "unsponsored," "restricted" or not, would be 
> up to the applicants. Contention among applicants for the 
> same name would be settled by auction, with the proceeds 
> going to ICANN. We understand that such a procedure raises 
> many issues of detail that are not elaborated here. But the 
> basic policy issu! e put before the GNSO is whether TLD 
> additions should be demand-driven or "structured." We favor 
> the open, demand-driven approach.
> 	
> 	The NCUC cannot support the proposed GNSO TLD Committee 
> Policy.  Contrary to the above stated principle favoring an 
> open and competitive structure, the Committee proposes that 
> no open TLD should be allowed to exist ever again. ICANN 
> would only expand the name space by defining a fixed, 
> mutually exclusive set of categories that users would be 
> stuffed into. All new TLDs would be sponsored and restricted, 
> and registries will be forced to authenticate registrants "to 
> ensure that they are registering names that are germane to 
> their businesses and not infringing on another's intellectual 
> property."  (We note with disappointment the proposal's 
> apparent inability to understand that not all domain names 
> are owned by "businesses.") 
> 	 The Committee also proposes a radical change in the 
> nature of the domain name registration industry. It proposes 
> that registries should have no control over the TLD names 
> that they operate. Instead, ICANN will make itself a central 
> planning authority for the name space, defining all TLD names 
> and assigning operation of the names to "qualified" registry 
> operators. We note that the proposal says nothing about the 
> critical issue of how names are assigned to registries, an 
> issue of tremendous political and economic importance.  
> 	
> 	We wish to make the following observations:
>  
> 
> §		The concept of a "structured" or "taxonomised" 
> name space, faces a great deal of opposition among ICANN 
> participants, and has no apparent support outside the 
> BC/trademark constituencies. At the Amsterdam public forum, 
> opponents outnumbered supporters by a 10 to 1 ratio. We also 
> note that a member of the BC and a member of the Intellectual 
> Property constituency were among the public critics of the 
> proposal in Amsterdam.
>