This is the Generic Names Supporting Organization's Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains. The Report is in two parts. Part A contains the substantive discussion of the Principles, Policy Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines and Part B contains a range of supplementary materials that have been used by the Committee during the course of the Policy Development Process.

The GNSO Committee on New Top-Level Domains consisted of all GNSO Council members. All meetings were open to a wide range of interested stakeholders and observers. A set of participation data is found in Part B.

Many of the terms found here have specific meaning within the context of ICANN and new top-level domains discussion. A full glossary of terms is available in the Reference Material section at the end of Part A.

BACKGROUND

1. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the overall coordination of "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" and ensuring the "stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN coordinates the "allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet". These are "domain names"(forming a system called the DNS); Internet protocol (IP) addresses and autonomous system (AS) numbers and Protocol port and parameter numbers". ICANN is also responsible for the "operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system and policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions". These elements are all contained in ICANN's Mission and Core Values[1] in addition to provisions which enable policy development work that, once approved by the ICANN Board, become binding on the organization. The results of the policy development process found here relate to the introduction of new generic top-level domains.

2. This document is the Final Report of the Generic Names Supporting Organisation's (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) that has been conducted using ICANN's Bylaws and policy development guidelines that relate to the work of the GNSO. This Report reflects a comprehensive examination of four Terms of Reference designed to establish a stable and ongoing process that facilitates the introduction of new top-level domains. The policy development process (PDP) is part of the Generic Names Supporting Organisation's (GNSO) mandate within the ICANN structure. However, close consultation with other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees has been an integral part of the process. The consultations and negotiations have also included a wide range of interested stakeholders from within and outside the ICANN community[2].

3. The Final Report is in two parts. This document is Part A and contains the full explanation of each of the Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines that the Committee has developed since December 2005[3]. Part B of the Report contains a wide range of supplementary materials which have been used in the policy development process including Constituency Impact Statements (CIS), a series of Working Group Reports on important sub-elements of the Committee's deliberations, a collection of external reference materials, and the procedural documentation of the policy development process[4].

4. The finalisation of the policy for the introduction of new top-level domains is part of a long series of events that have dramatically changed the nature of the Internet. The 1969 ARPANET diagram shows the initial design of a network that is now global in its reach and an integral part of many lives and businesses. The policy recommendations found here illustrate the complexity of the Internet of 2007 and, as a package, propose a system to add new top-level domains in an orderly and transparent way. The ICANN Staff Implementation Team, consisting of policy, operational and legal staff members, has worked closely with the Committee on all aspects of the policy development process[5]. The ICANN Board has received regular information and updates about the process and the substantive results of the Committee's work.

5. The majority of the early work on the introduction of new top-level domains is found in the IETF's Request for Comment series. RFC 1034[6] is a fundamental resource that explains key concepts of the naming system. Read in conjunction with RFC920[7], an historical picture emerges of how and why the domain name system hierarchy has been organised. Postel & Reynolds set out in their RFC920 introduction about the "General Purpose Domains" that ..."While the initial domain name "ARPA" arises from the history of the development of this system and environment, in the future most of the top level names will be very general categories like "government", "education", or "commercial". The motivation is to provide an organization name that is free of undesirable semantics."

6. In 2007, the Internet is multi-dimensional and its development is driven by widespread access to inexpensive communications technologies in many parts of the world. In addition, global travel is now relatively inexpensive, efficient and readily available to a diverse range of travellers. As a consequence, citizens no longer automatically associate themselves with countries but with international communities of linguistic, cultural or professional interests independent of physical location. Many people now exercise multiple citizenship rights, speak many different languages and quite often live far from where they were born or educated. The 2007 OECD Factbook[8] provides comprehensive statistics about the impact of migration on OECD member countries. In essence, many populations are fluid and changing due in part to easing labour movement restrictions but also because technology enables workers to live in one place and work in another relatively easily. As a result, companies and organizations are now global and operate across many geographic borders and jurisdictions. The following illustration[9] shows how rapidly the number of domain names under registration has increased and one could expect that trend to continue with the introduction of new top-level domains.

7. A key driver of change has been the introduction of competition in the registration of domain names through ICANN Accredited Registrars[10]. In June 2007, there were more than 800 accredited registrars who register names for end users with ongoing downward pressure on the prices end-users pay for domain name registration.

8. ICANN's work on the introduction of new top-level domains has been underway since 1999. By mid-1999, Working Group C[11] had quickly reached consensus on two issues, namely 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 work was undertaken throughout 2000 and saw the introduction of, for example, .coop, .aero and .biz.

9. After an evaluation period, a further round of sponsored TLDs was introduced during 2003 and 2004 which included, amongst others, .mobi and .travel[12].

10. The July 2007 zone file survey statistics from www.registrarstats.com [13] shows that there are slightly more than 96,000,000 top level domains registered across a selection of seven top-level domains including .com, .net and .info. Evidence from potential new applicants provides more impetus to implement a system that enables the ongoing introduction of new top level domains[14]. In addition, interest from Internet users who could use Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) in a wide variety of scripts beyond ASCII is growing rapidly.

11. To arrive at the full set of policy recommendations which are found here, the Committee considered the responses to a Call for Expert Papers issued at the beginning of the policy development process[15], and which was augmented by a full set of GNSO Constituency Statements[16]. These are all found in Part B of the Final Report and should be read in conjunction with this document. In addition, the Committee received detailed responses from the Implementation Team about proposed policy recommendations and the implementation of the recommendations package as an on-line application process that could be used by a wide array of potential applicants.

12. The Committee reviewed and analysed a wide variety of materials including Working Group C's findings, the evaluation reports from the 2003 & 2004 round of sponsored top-level domains and a full range of other historic materials[17].

13. In the past, a number of different approaches to new top level domains have been considered including the formulation of a structured taxonomy[18] of names, for example, .auto, .books, .travel and .music. The Committee has opted to enable potential applicants to self-select strings that are either the most appropriate for their customers or potentially the most marketable. It is expected that applicants will apply for targeted community strings such as .travel for the travel industry and .cat for the Catalan community as well as some generic strings. The Committee identified five key drivers for the introduction of new top-level domains.

(i) It is consistent with the reasons articulated in 1999 when the first proof-of-concept round was initiated

(ii) There are no technical impediments to the introduction of new top-level domains as evidenced by the two previous rounds

(iii) Expanding the domain name space to accommodate the introduction of both new ASCII and internationalised domain name (IDN) top-level domains will give end users more choice about the nature of their presence on the Internet. In addition, users will be able to use domain names in their language of choice.

(iv) There is demand for additional top-level domains as a business opportunity. The GNSO Committee expects that this business opportunity will stimulate competition at the registry service level which is consistent with ICANN's Core Value 6.

(v) No compelling reason has been articulated to not proceed with accepting applications for new top-level domains.

14. The remainder of this Report is structured around the four Terms of Reference. This includes an explanation of the Principles that have guided the work taking into account the Governmental Advisory Committee's March 2007 Public Policy Principles for New gTLDs[19]; a comprehensive set of Recommendations which has majority Committee support and a set of Implementation Guidelines which has been discussed in great detail with the ICANN Staff Implementation Team. The Implementation Team has released two ICANN Staff Discussion Points documents (in November 2006 and June 2007). Version 2 provides detailed analysis of the proposed recommendations from an implementation standpoint and provides suggestions about the way in which the implementation plan may come together. The ICANN Board will make the final decision about the actual structure of the application and evaluation process.

15. In each of the sections below the Committee's recommendations are discussed in more detail with an explanation of the rationale for the decisions. The recommendations have been the subject of numerous public comment periods and intensive discussion across a range of stakeholders including ICANN's GNSO Constituencies, ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees and members of the broader Internet-using public that is interested in ICANN's work[20]. In particular, detailed work has been conducted through the Internationalised Domain Names Working Group (IDN-WG)[21], the Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG)[22] and the Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group (PRO-WG) [23]. The Working Group Reports are found in full in Part B of the Final Report along with the March 2007 GAC Public Policy Principles for New Top-Level Domains, Constituency Impact Statements. A minority statement from the NCUC about Recommendations 6 & 20 are found Annexes for this document along with individual comments from Nominating Committee appointee Ms Avri Doria.

SUMMARY -- PRINCIPLES, RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

1. This section sets out, in table form, the set of Principles, proposed Policy Recommendations and Guidelines that the Committee has derived through its work. The addition of new gTLDs will be done in accordance with ICANN's primary mission which is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS and, in particular, the Internet's root server system[24].

2. The Principles are a combination of GNSO Committee priorities, ICANN staff implementation principles developed in tandem with the Committee and the March 2007 GAC Public Policy Principles on New Top-Level Domains. The Principles are supported by all GNSO Constituencies.[25]

3. ICANN's Mission and Core Values were key reference points for the development of the Committee's Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines. These are referenced in the right-hand column of the tables below.

4. The Principles have support from all GNSO Constituencies.

	PRINCIPLES	MISSION & CORE VALUES
A	New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.	M1 & CV1 & 2, 4-10
B	Some new generic top-level domains should be internationalised domain names (IDNs) subject to the approval of IDNs being available in the root.	M1-3 & CV 1, 4 & 6
C	The reasons for introducing new top-level domains include that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. In addition the introduction of new top-level domain application process has the potential to promote competition in the provision of registry services, to add to consumer choice, market differentiation and geographical and service-provider diversity.	M3 & CV 4-10
D	A set of technical criteria must be used for assessing a new gTLD registry applicant to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.	M1-3 & CV 1
E	A set of capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant must be used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to meets its obligations under the terms of ICANN's registry agreement.	M1-3 & CV 1
F	A set of operational criteria must be set out in contractual conditions in the registry agreement to ensure compliance with ICANN policies.	M1-3 & CV 1
G	The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law.

	RECOMMENDATIONS [26]	MISSION & CORE VALUES
1	ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains. The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process.	M1-3 & CV1-11
2	Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name.	M1-3 & C1-6-11
3	Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in particular freedom of expression rights).	CV3
4	Strings must not cause any technical instability.	M1-3 & CV 1
5	Strings must not be a Reserved Word[27].	M1-3 & CV 1 & 3
6*	Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).	M3 & CV 4
7	Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out.	M1-3 & CV1
8	Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability.	M1-3 & CV1
9	There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective and measurable criteria.	M3 & CV6-9
10	There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the application process.	CV7-9
11	[Replaced with Recommendation 20 and Implementation Guideline P and inserted into Term of Reference 3 Allocation Methods section]
12	Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process.	CV7-9
13	Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of demand is clear.	CV7-9
14	The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable length.	CV5-9
15	There must be renewal expectancy.	CV5-9
16	Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new Consensus Policies as they are approved.	CV5-9
17	A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base contract which could lead to contract termination.	M1 & CV1
18	If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28] must be followed.	M1 & CV1
19	Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.	M1 & CV1
20*	An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.

* The NCUC submitted Minority Statements on Recommendations 6 and 20. The remainder of the Recommendations have support from all GNSO Constituencies.

	IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES	MISSION & CORE VALUES
IG A	The application process will provide a pre-defined roadmap for applicants that encourages the submission of applications for new top-level domains.	CV 2, 5, 6, 8 & 9
IG B	Application fees will be designed to ensure that adequate resources exist to cover the total cost to administer the new gTLD process. Application fees may differ for applicants.	CV 5, 6, 8 & 9
IG C	ICANN will provide frequent communications with applicants and the public including comment forums.	CV 9 & 10
IG D	A first come first served processing schedule within the application round will be implemented and will continue for an ongoing process, if necessary. Applications will be time and date stamped on receipt.	CV 8-10
IG E	The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round.	CV 9 & 10
IG F*	If there is contention for strings, applicants may [29]: i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels.	CV 7-10
IG H*	Where an applicant lays any claim that the TLD is intended to support a particular community such as a sponsored TLD, or any other TLD intended for a specified community, that claim will be taken on trust with the following exceptions: (i) the claim relates to a string that is also subject to another application and the claim to support a community is being used to gain priority for the application; and (ii) a formal objection process is initiated. Under these exceptions, Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and procedures to investigate the claim. Under exception (ii), an expert panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions set forth in IG P.	CV 7 - 10
IG H	External dispute providers will give decisions on objections.	CV 10
IG I	An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe which will be specified in the application process.	CV 10
IG J	The base contract should balance market certainty and flexibility for ICANN to accommodate a rapidly changing market place.	CV 4-10
IG K	ICANN should take a consistent approach to the establishment of registry fees.	CV 5
IG L	The use of personal data must be limited to the purpose for which it is collected.	CV 8
IG M	ICANN may establish a capacity building and support mechanism aiming at facilitating effective communication on important and technical Internet governance functions in a way that no longer requires all participants in the conversation to be able to read and write English[30].	CV 3 - 7
IG N	ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from economies classified by the UN as least developed.	CV 3 - 7
IG O	ICANN may put in place systems that could provide information about the gTLD process in major languages other than English, for example, in the six working languages of the United Nations.	CV 8 -10
IG P*	The following process, definitions and guidelines refer to Recommendation 20. Process Opposition must be objection based. Determination will be made by a dispute resolution panel constituted for the purpose. The objector must provide verifiable evidence that it is an established institution of the community (perhaps like the RSTEP pool of panelists from which a small panel would be constituted for each objection). Guidelines The task of the panel is the determination of substantial opposition. a) substantial – in determining substantial the panel will assess the following: signification portion, community, explicitly targeting, implicitly targeting, established institution, formal existence, detriment b) significant portion – in determining significant portion the panel will assess the balance between the level of objection submitted by one or more established institutions and the level of support provided in the application from one or more established institutions. The panel will assess significance proportionate to the explicit or implicit targeting. c) community – community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic community. It may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted. d) explicitly targeting – explicitly targeting means there is a description of the intended use of the TLD in the application. e) implicitly targeting – implicitly targeting means that the objector makes an assumption of targeting or that the objector believes there may be confusion by users over its intended use. f) established institution – an institution that has been in formal existence for at least 5 years. In exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an institution that has been in existence for fewer than 5 years. Exceptional circumstances include but are not limited to a re-organization, merger or an inherently younger community. The following ICANN organizations are defined as established institutions: GAC, ALAC, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO. g) formal existence – formal existence may be demonstrated by appropriate public registration, public historical evidence, validation by a government, intergovernmental organization, international treaty organization or similar. h) detriment – the objector must provide sufficient evidence to allow the panel to determine that there would be a likelihood of detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of the community or to users more widely.
IG Q	ICANN staff will provide an automatic reply to all those who submit public comments that will explain the objection procedure.
IG R	Once formal objections or disputes are accepted for review there will be a cooling off period to allow parties to resolve the dispute or objection before review by the panel is initiated.

* The NCUC submitted Minority Statements on Implementation Guidelines F, H & P. The remainder of the Implementation Guidelines have support from all GNSO Constituencies.

1. This set of implementation guidelines is the result of detailed discussion, particularly with respect to the two ICANN Staff Discussion Points[31] documents that were prepared to facilitate consultation with the GNSO Committee about the implementation impacts of the proposed policy Recommendations. The Implementation Guidelines will be used to inform the final Implementation Plan which is approved by the ICANN Board

2. The Discussion Points documents contain draft flowcharts which have been developed by the Implementation Team and which will be updated, based on the final vote of the GNSO Council and the direction of the ICANN Board. The Discussion Points documents have been used in the ongoing internal implementation discussions that have focused on ensuring that draft recommendations proposed by the Committee are implementable in an efficient and transparent manner[32]. The flowchart setting out the proposed Contention Evaluation Process is a more detailed component within the Application Evaluation Process and will be amended to take into account the inputs from Recommendation 20 and its related Implementation Guidelines.

3. This policy development process has been designed to produce a systemised and ongoing mechanism for applicants to propose new top-level domains. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the first round will include scheduling information for the subsequent rounds to occur within one year. After the first round of new applications, the application system will be evaluated by ICANN's TLDs Project Office to assess the effectiveness of the application system. Success metrics will be developed and any necessary adjustments made to the process for subsequent rounds.

4. The following sections set out in detail the explanation for the Committee's recommendations for each Term of Reference.

TERM OF REFERENCE ONE -- WHETHER TO INTRODUCE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS

1. Recommendation 1 Discussion – All GNSO Constituencies supported the introduction of new top-level domains.

2. The GNSO Committee was asked to address the question of whether to introduce new top-level domains. The Committee recommends that ICANN should implement a process that allows the introduction of new top level domains and that work should proceed to develop policies that will enable the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking into account the recommendations found in the latter sections of the Report concerning Selection Criteria (Term of Reference 2), Allocation Methods (Term of Reference 3) and Policies for Contractual Conditions (Term of Reference 4).

3. ICANN's work on the introduction of new top-level domains has been ongoing since 1999. The early work included the 2000 Working Group C Report[33] that also asked the question of "whether there should be new TLDs". By mid-1999, the Working Group had quickly reached consensus on two issues, namely 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 work was undertaken throughout 2000 and saw the introduction of, for example, .coop, .aero and .biz.

4. After an evaluation period, a further round of sponsored TLDs was introduced during 2003 and 2004 which included, amongst others, .mobi and .travel.

5. In addressing Term of Reference One, the Committee arrived at its recommendation by reviewing and analysing a wide variety of materials including Working Group C's findings; the evaluation reports from the 2003-2004 round of sponsored top-level domains and full range of other historic materials which are posted at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds//

6. In addition, the Committee considered the responses to a Call for Expert Papers issued at the beginning of the policy development process[34]. These papers augmented a full set of GNSO Constituency Statements[35] and a set of Constituency Impact Statements[36] that addressed specific elements of the Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines.

7. The Committee was asked, at its February 2007 Los Angeles meeting, to confirm its rationale for recommending that ICANN introduce new top-level domains. In summary, there are five threads which have emerged:

(i) It is consistent with the reasons articulated in 1999 when the first proof-of-concept round was initiated

(ii) There are no technical impediments to the introduction of new top-level domains as evidenced by the two previous rounds

(iii) It is hoped that expanding the domain name space to accommodate the introduction of both new ASCII and internationalised domain name (IDN) top-level domains will give end users more choice about the nature of their presence on the Internet. In addition, users will be able to use domain names in their language of choice.

(iv) In addition, the introduction of a new top-level domain application process has the potential to promote competition in the provision of registry services, and to add to consumer choice, market differentiation and geographic and service-provider diversity which is consistent with ICANN's Core Value 6.

(v) No compelling reason has been articulated to not proceed with accepting applications for new top-level domains.

8. Article X, Part 7, Section E of the GNSO's Policy Development Process requires the submission of "constituency impact statements" which reflect the potential implementation impact of policy recommendations. By 4 July 2007 all GNSO Constituencies had submitted Constituency Impact Statements (CIS) to the gtld-council mailing list[37]. Each of those statements is referred to throughout the next sections[38] and are found in full in Part B of the Report. The NCUC submitted Minority Statements on Recommendations 6 & 20 and on Implementation Guidelines F, H & P. These statements are found in full here in Annex A & C, respectively, as they relate specifically to the finalised text of those two recommendations. GNSO Committee Chair and Nominating Committee appointee Ms Avri Doria also submitted individual comments on the recommendation package. Her comments are found in Annex B here.

9. All Constituencies support the introduction of new TLDs particularly if the application process is transparent and objective. For example, the ISPCP said that, "...the ISPCP is highly supportive of the principles defined in this section, especially with regards to the statement in [principle A] (A): New generic top-level domains must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way. Network operators and ISPs must ensure their customers do not encounter problems in addressing their emails, and in their web searching and access activities, since this can cause customer dissatisfaction and overload help-desk complaints. Hence this principle is a vital component of any addition sequence to the gTLD namespace. The various criteria as defined in D, E and F, are also of great importance in contributing to minimise the risk of moving forward with any new gTLDs, and our constituency urges ICANN to ensure they are scrupulously observed during the applications evaluation process". The Business Constituency's (BC) CIS said that "...If the outcome is the best possible there will be a beneficial impact on business users from: a reduction in the competitive concentration in the Registry sector; increased choice of domain names; lower fees for registration and ownership; increased opportunities for innovative on-line business models." The Registrar Constituency (RC) agreed with this view stating that "...new gTLDs present an opportunity to Registrars in the form of additional products and associated services to offer to its customers. However, that opportunity comes with the costs if implementing the new gTLDs as well as the efforts required to do the appropriate business analysis to determine which of the new gTLDs are appropriate for its particular business model."

10. The Registry Constituency (RyC) said that "...Regarding increased competition, the RyC has consistently supported the introduction of new gTLDs because we believe that: there is a clear demand for new TLDs; competition creates more choices for potential registrants; introducing new TLDs with different purposes increases the public benefit; new gTLDS will result in creativity and differentiation in the domain name industry; the total market for all TLDs, new and old, will be expanded." In summary, the Committee recommended, "ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains. The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process". Given that this recommendation has support from all Constituencies, the following sections set out the other Terms of Reference recommendations.

TERM OF REFERENCE -- SELECTION CRITERIA

1. Recommendation 2 Discussion -- Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain.

i) This recommendation has support from all the GNSO Constituencies. Ms Doria accepted the recommendation with the concern expressed below[39].

ii) The list of existing top-level domains is maintained by IANA and is listed in full on ICANN's website[40]. Naturally, as the application process enables the operation of new top-level domains this list will get much longer and the test more complex. The RyC, in its Impact Statement, said that "...This recommendation is especially important to the RyC. ... It is of prime concern for the RyC that the introduction of new gTLDs results in a ubiquitous experience for Internet users that minimizes user confusion. gTLD registries will be impacted operationally and financially if new gTLDs are introduced that create confusion with currently existing gTLD strings or with strings that are introduced in the future. There is a strong possibility of significant impact on gTLD registries if IDN versions of existing ASCII gTLDs are introduced by registries different than the ASCII gTLD registries. Not only could there be user confusion in both email and web applications, but dispute resolution processes could be greatly complicated." The ISPCP also stated that this recommendation was "especially important in the avoidance of any negative impact on network activities." The RC stated that "...Registrars would likely be hesitant to offer confusingly similar gTLDs due to customer demand and support concerns. On the other hand, applying the concept too broadly would inhibit gTLD applicants and ultimately limit choice to Registrars and their customers".

iii) There are two other key concepts within this recommendation. The first is the issue of "confusingly similar" [41] and the second "likelihood of confusion". There is extensive experience within the Committee with respect to trademark law and the issues found below have been discussed at length, both within the Committee and amongst the Implementation Team.

PRINCIPLES

All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process.

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

If there is contention for strings, applicants may[29]:

TERM OF REFERENCE ONE -- WHETHER TO INTRODUCE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS

TERM OF REFERENCE -- SELECTION CRITERIA

If there is contention for strings, applicants may [29]: