[ga] Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From the WG-C report -- final version
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01095.html

Discussions within the working group

	The working group quickly -- by mid-July, 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.

	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 .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. The inflated value of the speculators'
market imposes
additional costs on businesses making defensive
registrations of domain names.

	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 by North
American indigenous peoples.  Other examples are easy
to imagine.

	Creation of new generic top-level domains can be
beneficial in other respects.   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 in WG-C that cut against
the addition of new gTLDs.  First, some working group
members suggested that the perceived need for new
gTLDs was illusory.  Public commenters raising this
issue included Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade.

	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.  Accordingly, any increase in the
number of new gTLDs should be
cautious.  Notwithstanding requests, though, no
working group member offered studies or other evidence
backing up this view.

	Finally, some working group members raised 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.  It will present a risk that bad
actors will seek to confuse consumers by registering
SLD strings identical to those registered by others in
other TLDs.  It will likely increase trademark owners'
policing costs and the costs of defensive
registrations.

	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, as well as by national legislation. Trademark
owners' concerns in this regard are important ones,
and not to be overlooked.  In public comments on the
Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters
urged that deployment should be delayed until after
implementation of the uniform dispute resolution
procedure, improved domain name registration
procedures, and adoption of a system for protecting
famous marks.  They included, among
others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr.
Victoria Carrington, AOL, British Telecom, Disney,
INTA, Nintendo of America and Time Warner.  Steven
Metalitz expressed a similar view: "New gTLD's should
be inaugurated only when, and to the extent that,
established and proven procedures are in place in the
existing gTLD's to improve the quality and
accessibility  of
registrant contact data, as well as satisfactory
dispute solution
procedures."  

The comments of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business &
Commercial constituency urged, on behalf of the
constituency, that "business requirements such as the
effective implementation of the UDRP and international
business practices such as jurisdictional domains"
hould be addressed satisfactorily before new gTLDs are
deployed.  The Software and Information Industry
Association noted its support for adding new gTLDs,
but only after the creation of a robust, responsive
whois system.

	Other commenters, by contrast, do not believe that
trademark-related concerns justify delay in the
introduction of new gTLDs.  These included Hirofumi
Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC) (emphasizing that discussion
of famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD
rollout), Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael
Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), 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 (then an NC member, NCDNHC) 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.

	Within the working group, the argument that ICANN
should impose substantial delays on the initial
deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or
perfecting trademark- protective mechanisms won little
support except from Intellectual Property constituency
members. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com