Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

I agree with Bob's concerns, and with his proposed solutions.

Bill Semich
.NU Domain


At 12:28 PM 3/4/00 -0500, bob broxton wrote:
>I feel Jon has done an excellent job in the attached document.  It is
concise and well
>written.  As I only joined Working Group C in the fall, I am assuming it
is factually
>correct.
>
>I have two recommendations of which I feel very strongly.   Both these
recommendations
>go to procedural fairness.  I want to make sure whoever receives this
document
>(especially the Press Corps in Cairo) is not mislead as to the nature of the
>document.  The two recommendations are as follows:
>
>1.  The report should neither be labelled "Report (Part One) of Working
Group C of the
>Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and
>Numbers" nor referred to as "This document is Part One of the Report of
Working Group
>C" (first sentence of the document).
>
>A report, in order to be labelled a report of a group, needs to have a
formal vote for
>adoption by that group.  Working Group C has never voted to make this
Working Group
>C's "Report, Part One....".
>
>Since the report was posted on Wednesday, March 1 or Thursday, March 2
(depending on
>time zone) at most seven days have been allowed for comment on the report.
 This means
>many members of Working Group C may never have reviewed this document.
Certainly this
>is insufficient time to allow some members to respond with detailed,
thoughtful,
>comments if those members disagreed with any portions of the document.
This is
>especially true since this is a part-time working group in which all
members have
>other responsibilities. The short notice is not Jon's fault (I assume he
was given
>this assignment on very short notice) but it does not change the fact that
the time
>allowed for comments is insufficient for receiving comments on a document
as important
>as one labelled the "Report (Part One)..." of the entire group.
>
>If the head of any group issues a document and labels the document
"Report (Part
>One)" of the group, without ever seeking a vote on the Report from the
group, this can
>be terribly misleading.  It implies the members of the group have adopted
the report,
>including everything exactly as stated in the document.  What is in
reality the report
>of one individual on the progress of the group has the appearance of
formal approval
>of the group for the exact language as stated in the Report.
>
>As the members of Working Group C have never voted on this Report, the
cover page,
>heading and first sentence of this document should be changed to read:
>
>This is a report by the Co-Chairman of Working Group C describing the
progress of
>Working Group C.  This is not a report of Working Group C.   Working Group
C has never
>taken a vote approving this report.
>
>It is also very important that the Co-Chairman in orally presenting this
document
>stress at all times that this document is not the Report (Part One) of
Working Group
>C.  This will prevent anyone from believing that this document, as worded,
has been
>adopted by Working Group C.
>
>2.  The requirement to obtain five votes in order to submit a minority
(dissenting )
>statement should be eliminated.   If someone wants to submit a minority or
dissenting
>report they should be allowed to do so.  To my knowledge, Working Group C
has never
>adopted this procedural limitation on the expressing of one's views.
>
>I suspect since this is a part-time working group, most members have never
meet five
>other members or may not have retained their e-mail addresses.
Considering the
>extremely short time allowed to respond to this document, the requirement
to circulate
>and then obtain the concurrence of five other members, effectively
eliminates most
>minority or dissenting opinions.  This is totally unfair to any member
that would like
>to submit a minority or dissenting opinion.
>
>
>Thank you very much for considering these recommendations.  Again, Jon is
to be
>congratulated on the excellent work he has done in compiling this document.
>
>Bob Broxton
>broxton@erols.com
>
>Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Folks --
>>
>>         Members of the Names Council have requested that WG-C file a report
>> **before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week** describing our initial
>> conclusions.  Accordingly, I've drafted up a document.  This is a draft, to
>> be rewritten in response to reactions from the list.  Because time is
>> short, please give me your comments as quickly as you can, and in no event
>> later than midnight UTC on Tuesday, March 7.  In addition to the redrafting
>> process, if anybody wants to draft up a minority (dissenting) statement,
>> please send it to me by midnight UTC on March 7, with the endorsement of at
>> least five WG-C members, and I'll attach it.
>>
>>         Thanks; I apologize for the short turnaround.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Report (Part One) of
>> Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet
>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>>         This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group C.  It
sets out
>> the rough consensus of the group regarding whether there should be new
>> generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and if so, how quickly they should be
>> added to the root as an initial matter.  Part Two of the Report, which will
>> follow, will address other issues relating to the addition of new gTLDs.
>>
>> Introduction and summary
>>
>>         Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues. The
first is
>> that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is that ICANN
>> should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six to
>> ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  This report will address
>> each of these issues separately.  For each of the issues, it will summarize
>> the discussions within the working group, arguments pro and con, and
>> comments received from the public.
>>
>> Procedural and outreach history
>>
>>         The Names Council approved the charter of Working Group C on
June 25,
>> 1999, and named Javier Sola as its chair.  On July 29, the working group
>> members elected Jonathan Weinberg co-chair.  The working group currently
>> has more than 140 members, not all of whom are active.  It includes
>> extensive representation from each of the constituencies.  (There is one
>> partial exception:  For most of the life of the working group, no NSI
>> representative participated.  When WG-C's co-chair solicited greater
>> participation from the Registry constituency, Don Telage explained that NSI
>> had chosen not to involve itself in the WG-C process.  That
>> representational gap has been filled now that Tony Rutkowski — an active
>> WG-C member from the start — has joined NSI in a senior policymaking
>> capacity.)
>>
>>         On October 23, 1999, the Working Group released its Interim
Report.  That
>> report described the issues on which the Working Group had reached rough
>> consensus to date.  It also included seven "position papers," setting out
>> alternative scenarios for the introduction of new gTLDs.  On November 23,
>> 1999, the Names Council formally requested public comment on the Interim
>> Report.  This call for comments was publicized on a variety of mailing
>> lists maintained by the DNSO, including ga-announce, ga, and liaison7c
>> (which includes the constituency secretariats).  In addition, WG-C's
>> co-chair spoke at the meetings of most of the constituencies at the Los
>> Angeles ICANN meeting, and urged constituency members to file comments.
>> Nearly 300 comments were filed in response to the interim report.  They
>> included responses from leading members of all of the constituencies but
>> two — the record does not include comments from the ccTLD or Registry
>> constituencies (although ccTLD members and Mr. Rutkowski participated in
>> the discussions that led to the Interim Report, and WG-C's co-chair
>> expressly solicited the comments of both of those groups).
>>
>> Issue One — Should There Be New gTLDs?
>>
>> Discussions within the working group
>>
>>         The working group quickly -- by mid-August, 1999 -- reached
consensus that
>> there should be new global top-level domains.  There was very little
>> dissent from this position.
>>
>> Arguments supporting the consensus position
>>
>>         Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice, and
create
>> opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current name
>> structure.  Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more
>> registrations than all other top-level domain names combined, and is  ten
>> times the size of the largest ccTLD.  Yet it has become nearly impossible
>> to register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year ago, in April
>> 1999, a survey found that of 25,500 standard English-language dictionary
>> words, only 1,760 were free in the .com domain.  Millions of additional
>> names have been registered in .com since then.
>>
>>         This situation is undesirable.  It requires companies to register
>> increasingly unwieldy domain names for themselves, and is inflating the
>> value of the secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names.
>> Existing second-level domain names under the dot com TLD routinely change
>> hands for enormously inflated prices. These are legitimate trades of
>> ordinary, untrademarked words; their high prices reflect the artificial
>> scarcity of common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on .com names
>> in particular.
>>
>>         Companies that currently have a domain name in the form of
>> <www.companyname.com> have an extremely important marketing and
>> name-recognition tool.  They have an advantage over all other companies
>> that do not have addresses in that form, because the companyname.com firms
>> are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most
>> easily.  If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get
>> easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to
>> successful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered.  Addition
>> of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have the same second-level
>> domain name in different TLDs.  Those businesses will have to compete based
>> on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which
>> company locked up the most desirable domain name first.
>>
>>         Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge noncommercial
name space,
>> and allow the creation of top-level domains designed to serve noncommercial
>> goals.  One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in the public comments,
>> advocated the creation of a new top-level domain to be operated for the
>> benefit of North American indigenous peoples.  Other examples are easy to
>> imagine.
>>
>>         In response to the unsatisfied demand for new gTLD names,
several ccTLD
>> registries, including .nu, .cc, and .to, have transformed themselves into
>> gTLDs, marketing their names globally as alternatives to .com, .net and
>> .org.  This is undesirable from the perspective of protecting trademark
>> rights, since no mechanisms are in place to ensure that these TLDs enact
>> the same trademark-protective procedures (such as the UDRP) now in place in
>> the gTLDs.  The transformation of ccTLDs into globally marketed commercial
>> gTLDs deprives the local Internet community of the benefits of a ccTLD more
>> closely oriented to serving that community.  To the extent that ICANN
>> wishes to deploy new gTLDs subject to community-determined policy
>> guidelines, finally, the growth of ccTLDs in response to pent-up demand for
>> TLDs frustrates that goal.
>>
>>         Creation of new generic top-level domains can be beneficial in
other ways.
>>  One proposal before WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation of
>> multiple registries, each capable of managing registrations for multiple
>> TLDs, so as to eliminate the single point of failure for the registration
>> process.  Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are necessary to support the
>> multiple registries needed for stability.
>>
>>         Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an important part of
ICANN's
>> mandate.  ICANN was created because the institutions that preceded it were
>> unable to resolve the intense political and economic conflicts created by
>> demand for new top-level domain names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's
>> White Paper saw the establishment of policy "for determining the
>> circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system" as one of
>> ICANN's fundamental goals.
>>
>> Arguments opposing the consensus position
>>
>>         Three arguments were made, or suggested, in WG-C that cut
against the
>> addition of new gTLDs.  The first relates to trademark policing concerns:
>> Expansion of the domain space will create additional opportunities for the
>> registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to existing
>> trademarks.  The relationship between domain names and trademark rights
>> presents an important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed
>> by registry data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms
>> such as the UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt.
>> Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are important ones, and not to be
>> overlooked.  The argument that ICANN should impose substantial delays on
>> the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or
>> perfecting such mechanisms, however, did not win much support within the
>> working group except among Intellectual Property constituency members.
>>
>>         Second, some working group members suggested that an increase in
the
>> number of top- level domains could confuse consumers, because it would be
>> harder for consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of top-level
>> domains.  Notwithstanding requests, though, no working group member offered
>> studies or other evidence backing up this view.
>>
>>         Finally, some working group members suggested that the perceived
need for
>> new gTLDs was illusory.  For the reasons described above, it is the sense
>> of the working group that that view is incorrect.
>>
>> Public comments
>>
>>         The comments received by the working group fell into several
categories.
>> A few commenters questioned whether new gTLDs were indeed needed: this
>> group included Bell Atlantic, Marilyn Cade and John Lewis (writing on
>> behalf of some members of the Business & Commercial constituency).
>>
>>         Some commenters took no position on whether new gTLDs should be
added.
>> Rather, they focused their comments on the position that deployment should
>> be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution
>> procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and protection for
>> so-called famous marks.  These commenters included, among others, Jonathan
>> Cohen, Dr. Victoria Carrington, AOL, British Telecom, Disney, INTA,
>> Nintendo of America and Time Warner.  Comments noting the need for caution
>> in deploying new gTLDs, but not explicitly referencing famous-marks
>> protection, were filed by the Software and Information Industry Association
>> (which supports adding new gTLDs, but only after the creation of a robust,
>> responsive whois system), John Lewis (writing on behalf of some members of
>> the Business and Commercial constituency), and Steve Metalitz.
>>
>>         A third set of comments urged the addition of new gTLDs without
further
>> delay.  These commenters included, among others, Hiro Hotta (emphasizing
>> that discussion of famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD
>> rollout), Kathryn Kleiman, Michael Schneider, Computer Professionals for
>> Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT, AXISNET (Peruvian Association of Users
>> and ISPs), the United States Small Business Administration's Office of
>> Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs, Tucows.com, InterAccess Company
>> and   PSI-Japan.  Raul Echeberria filed comments urging that the
>> establishment of new gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules
>> should be devised to avoid massive speculative purchases of domains in the
>> new TLDs, or trademark holders simply duplicating their existing domains.
>>
>>         A fourth, and by far the largest, set of comments supported the
creation
>> of a specific proposed new domain: .NAA, proposed as a new gTLD to be run
>> for the benefit of North American indigenous peoples.
>>
>> Issue Two — What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout?
>>
>> Discussions within the working group
>>
>>         In September 1999, the WG-C co-chairs made the determination
that the
>> working group had reached rough consensus supporting a compromise proposal
>> that the initial deployment of new gTLDs should include six to ten new
>> gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  Because there had been no formal
>> consensus call, though, the working group held a vote in December 1999 to
>> reaffirm that consensus.  Following the lead of Working Group B, the
>> working group determined in advance that a two-thirds margin would
>> constitute adequate evidence of rough consensus.  The vote reaffirmed the
>> compromise position as the rough consensus of the working group, by a
>> margin of 44 to 20.  (A substantial number of working group members did not
>> cast votes.  In addition, some working group members, having been solicited
>> to vote, sent messages to the list explaining that they were declining to
>> take a position at that time, and listed themselves as consequently
>> abstaining.  Neither the non-voters nor the abstainers were counted in
>> figuring the two-thirds majority.)
>>
>>         Members of the working group had expressed sharply varying
positions on
>> the nature of the initial rollout.  Some working group members urged that
>> ICANN should immediately announce its intention to authorize hundreds of
>> new gTLDs over the course of the next few years.  While ICANN might
>> interrupt that process if it observed serious problems with the rollout,
>> the presumption would be in favor of deployment to the limits of the
>> technically feasible and operationally stable.  If ICANN simply deployed a
>> small number of new gTLDs with no commitment to add more, they argued, the
>> public would have to make registration decisions based on the possibility
>> that the small number of new gTLDs would be the only options.  This would
>> give the new registries oligopoly power and the ability to earn
>> greater-than-competitive profits; it would encourage pre-emptive and
>> speculative registrations based on the possibility of continued artificial
>> scarcity.  By contrast, they urged, an ICANN decision to deploy a large
>> number of gTLDs would enable competition and a level playing field: If
>> ICANN announced an intention to add hundreds of new gTLDs over a three-year
>> period, no new registry could exercise market power based on the prospect
>> of a continued artificial scarcity of names.
>>
>>         Other working group members took the opposite approach.  New
gTLDs, they
>> urged, could seriously aggravate the problems facing trademark
>> rightsholders in the existing domain name space.  Accordingly, they urged,
>> new gTLDs should be introduced only slowly and in a controlled manner, and
>> only after effective trademark protection mechanisms had been implemented
>> and shown to be effective.
>>
>>         A third set of working group members took still another
approach.  In the
>> long term, they stated, it would be desirable for ICANN to allow the
>> deployment of new gTLDs to the limits of the technically feasible and
>> operationally stable.  As a short-term matter, however, the immediate
>> deployment of hundreds of new TLDs would not be prudent.  The operationally
>> safer course, rather, should be to deploy a smaller number, and to follow
>> that deployment with an evaluation period during which the Internet
>> community could see what lessons were to be learned from the initial
>> deployment.  ICANN would go on to deploy additional TLDs if no serious
>> problems arose in the initial rollout.  The initial deployment would be a
>> testbed, in the sense that ICANN's decisions regarding the rollout of
>> subsequent gTLDs would rest on that initial experience.
>>
>>         The proposal that ICANN start by deploying six to ten new TLDs,
followed
>> by an evaluation period, was crafted as a compromise position to bridge the
>> gap separating the three groups, and to enable a rough consensus to form in
>> the middle ground.
>>
>> Arguments supporting the consensus position
>>
>>         The consensus position has the advantage of being a compromise
proposal
>> supported by a wide range of working group members.  In a bottom-up,
>> consensus-driven organization, broad agreement on a policy path is valuable
>> for its own sake.  The sense of the bulk of the working group is that this
>> proposal strikes an appropriate balance between aggressiveness and prudence
>> in remedying the shortage of domain names.
>>
>> Arguments opposing the consensus position
>>
>>         Three arguments were made in the working group against the
proposal.  The
>> first was that the contemplated initial deployment was too large; rather,
>> some WG members urged, it would be appropriate, following the
>> implementation of effective intellectual property protections, for ICANN to
>> roll out no more than two or three new gTLDs.  Most WG members felt,
>> however, that this figure was smaller than caution dictated, and that such
>> a modest deployment would not give ICANN the information that it would need
>> to make sensible later decisions.
>>
>>         The second argument was that the contemplated initial deployment
was too
>> small: that, as detailed above, a deployment of only six to ten, without an
>> upfront commitment to roll out many more, will be a half-measure that would
>> grant oligopoly power to the lucky registries selected for the initial
>> rollout.  This argument has considerable force.  Most of the working group
>> members felt, however, that an initial commitment to many more than six to
>> ten would not be operationally sound.  Until we see the consequences for
>> the domain name space of adding new gTLDs, there are advantages to a more
>> circumspect path.
>>
>>         The final objection raised was that the consensus agreement
answered the
>> wrong question: The working group, said some, should not be addressing the
>> number of new gTLDs at all before resolving such issues as whether the new
>> top-level domains should be general-purpose (like .com), special-purpose,
>> or some combination of the two.  The working group is currently addressing
>> these issues (they will be discussed in Part Two of the WG's Report), and
>> certainly it would not have been inappropriate for it to have sought to
>> reach conclusions on those matters before discussing Issue Two.  But most
>> members of the working group concluded that the path of resolving the
>> nature of the initial deployment first was just as valid.
>>
>> Public comments
>>
>>         As with Issue One, public comment on this issue was divided.  Bell
>> Atlantic and Marilyn Cade supported the introduction of just a single new
>> gTLD at the outset.  John Lewis, on behalf of some members of the Business
>> & Commercial constituency, suggested the introduction of a very small
>> number; British Telecom and Time Warner urged the initial rollout of only a
>> few.  Other commenters, including Jonathan Cohen, Dr. Victoria Carrington,
>> AOL, Disney and Nintendo of America, generally endorsed the statement that
>> the introduction of new gTLDs should be slow and controlled, and should
>> incorporate an evaluation period.
>>
>>         By contrast, Hiro Hotta, Kathryn Kleiman, Michael Schneider,
Computer
>> Professionals for Social Responsibility, AXISNET, InterWorking Labs,
>> Tucows.com and InterAccess Company supported the position that ICANN
>> should, at the outset, announce a schedule for introducing hundreds of new
>> TLDs.  The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration concluded
>> that ICANN should start with a limited introduction of new TLDs followed by
>> an evaluation period, but that ICANN should announce in advance that it
>> would continue with a steady introduction of additional TLDs so long as
>> pre-announced technical criteria were met.  Raul Echeberria, by contrast,
>> emphasized that ICANN should evaluate the operation and market acceptance
>> of the TLDs added in the initial rollout before creating or announcing
>> more.  Melbourne IT, PSI-Japan and Register.com all supported the
>> compromise position of an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs followed
>> by an evaluation period.
>>
>> --------------
>>
>>         A detailed summary of the public comments on Issues One and Two is
>> available at <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00490.html>.
>
>
Bill Semich
President and Founder
.NU Domain Ltd
http://whats.nu
bill@mail.nic.nu