[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[comments-gtlds] forwarded for John C. Lewis (BT Response to WG-C Draft Report)

>From: john.c.lewis@bt.com
>To: bcdnso@bcdnso.org, weinberg@mail.msen.com, jsola@aui.es
>Subject: BT Response to WG-C Draft Report
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:42:15 -0000
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.23)
>Jon, Javier, colleagues,
>Please see below BT's views on the draft report from WG-C:
>A Submission from British Telecommunications plc on the issues covered by
>ICANN DNSO WG-C on the creation of additional gTLDs
>1 Background.
>BT has participated in the debates over the creation of new gTLDs through
>the 'discuss' group on the DNSO website, discussions at the ICANN DNSO
>events and through conference calls in the Business and Commercial
>Constituency of the DNSO. The B&C constituency is submitting a separate
>paper but the following represents the main concerns of BT as a participant
>in ICANN. 
>2 Policy and Procedures
>The subject is a very wide topic and there are many aspects that need to be
>addressed. In particular the way in which the topic has been approached in
>WG-C has not separated out the issues of policy and procedure, with some
>consequent gaps in the coverage of the topic. These are apparent in the
>Draft report of the WG-C co-chairs and the seven papers authored by various
>groups in the ICANN community. In consequence there are several areas which
>merit further attention before robust decisions can be taken on whether new
>gTLDs are necessary, why any particular framework should be adopted, how and
>when they should be implemented. 
>3 Paramount Considerations
>BT considers that the stability of the root server and Internet is
>paramount. There is no clearly argued case for creating or accrediting
>additional registries for each gTLD. BT does not accept that there should be
>two or more competing Registries running one gTLD; there are many problems
>regarding keeping the database(s) synchronised, and ensuring equal
>opportunity and service available to all parties equally. BT supports the
>view that the management of the root zone and gTLD registry should be
>performed on behalf of the public interest, for example, under the control
>of ICANN. BT supports the view that there should be a hierarchical approach
>with the Root Registry at the core of service. The intent should be a
>charter to provide the registry as a 'sole source' but possibly operated by
>a subcontractor on behalf of ICANN. BT supports the creation of multiple
>registrars as domain name service providers in a competitive market. BT
>supports the view that there should be no distinction between the
>intellectual property rules applied to commercial and non-commercial gTLDs.
>Adopting a less stringent standard for contact information for so-called
>"non-commercial" gTLDs may encourage abusive practices in such gTLDs.
>4 Barriers to creating new gTLDs
>BT is in favour of deferring the creation of additional gTLDs until a number
>of major issues have been effectively resolved in a substantial manner. BT
>supports the views expressed by IP lawyers, some ISPs and other Carriers
>that the question of how many gTLDs should be added, should not be addressed
>until appropriate safeguards are in place to protect both commercial and
>non-commercial intellectual property, trademarks and brands. BT considers
>that there are a number of pre-conditions that need to be fulfilled, and
>that the conditions for the introduction of new gTLDs are not yet in place.
>These include assessment of the adequacy of the coverage of the UDRP to
>protect against actions such as abuses of the domain name system and to
>confirm the effectiveness of the implementation of the policy. Confirmation
>of the robustness of these policies and controls is essential before
>additional gTLDs are created to avoid increasing the risks. 
>BT supports ICANN's recognition of the importance of registrants' data and
>proposals requiring all accredited registrars to provide query-based access
>to registration data. This imposes a requirement for verification of their
>capabilities. Furthermore registration procedures should be improved
>through: a) improved domain name registration procedures; b) centralised
>access to the "WHO-IS" type of data; c) 
>Implementation of speedy and effective uniform dispute resolution procedures
>for abusive registrations; and d) adoption of a system for protecting famous
>and well-known trademark across all gTLDs.
>5 Resolving Jurisdictional Issues
>BT notes the domestic legislation in the US on cybersquatting and encourages
>ICANN to pursue appropriate controls on abuses of the Domain Names
>registration system both through its own registrar accreditation programme,
>and by endorsing initiatives in other jurisdictions. This must include
>relevant guidance on cross-jurisdictional resolution. BT is concerned that
>the confidence of business and consumers in the Internet and for e-commerce
>depends critically on the legitimacy of the domain name registrant, and
>abuses such as cyber-squatting, cyber-imposture and cyber-fraud must be
>6 The Framework for New gTLDs
>BT considers that once these pre-requisites have been satisfactorily
>resolved then the issue of the timing and introduction of new gTLDs should
>be addressed. Given the concerns over the stability of the system, BT is in
>favour of a trial of a few new gTLDs that should be carefully monitored to
>assess their impact on the Internet. These new gTLDs should be narrowly
>defined categories, which avoid the risks of short-term, large-scale
>adoption. ICANN should map out a framework of defined purpose TLDs so that
>users can rely on the structure of the DNS in seeking URLs associated with a
>particular business or content providers. This framework will need to create
>a structure that will avoid future contention and duplication as more gTLDs
>are added, minimising the potential disruption to customers needing to
>change TLD to stay in the appropriate cyber-namespace. The creation of new
>gTLDs on any unstructured basis must be totally avoided to minimise the
>confusion sustained by customers and users of the Internet. 
>7 Procedures for Selecting New gTLDs 
>Some proposals include the process whereby ICANN should decide on a set of
>new gTLD strings. For example some suggest that in picking the new gTLD
>strings, ICANN should have the assistance of a standing Working Group who
>would make periodic proposals for new gTLDs. This process requires detailed
>investigation that has not been addressed in detail in any of these papers,
>and as such should form a future work package. 
>8 Rolling Out New gTLDs
>The WG ran a straw poll on the issue of how quickly ICANN should roll out
>new generic top-level domains. This showed a sharp division between those
>favouring a cautious approach under which ICANN would begin the rollout by
>adding a few new gTLDs, and then pausing to assess the results before adding
>more. Others favoured an uninterrupted rollout of a large number of new
>top-level domains over the next few years. BT is in favour of limited
>release of new gTLDs in a test-bed phase permitting evaluation prior to any
>further rollout. 
>John C Lewis
>British Telecommunications plc
>10 January 2000
>Best regards
>John C Lewis
>Manager - International Organisations Europe
>BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
>BT co-ordinator ICANN representation
>Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
>Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861