Re: [ga] ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear seceretariat and all former DNSO GA Members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Than you for providing this report on the evaluation of the
introduction of
new considered TLD's.  However it is mostly milk toast mixed in with
some
outright untruths.  Some will be able to take not or those for
themselves.
However one glaring one has already been several times in the past few
days
been mentioned and commented upon.  However as archives for this and
other already again mentioned ICANN forums are not working and therefore
perhaps those remarks and mentions may become "Lost" or otherwise
not considered what so ever.

  On balance, the executive summary below is more of a white wash/milk
toast rather than a frank and straight forward overall summary that
expresses
the huge and still ongoing problems with ICANN's registration policy's
which to this day do not have stakeholder/users support.



GNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:

> [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
> [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
>
> ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero,
> .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm
>
> Prepared for the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> by
> Summit Strategies International
>
> The full report may be viewed at:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf
>
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm
>
> In November 2000, the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) selected seven proposals for new
> top-level domains (gTLDs): .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and
> .pro. This was the first effort to expand the domain name system (DNS) since
> the 1980s, other than by adding "country code top-level domains" that
> correspond to particular countries or territories. Shortly before the first
> of the new gTLDs was launched in September 2001, the ICANN Board decided
> that it was important to evaluate the "proof-of-concept" under which they
> were introduced. The Board established the "New TLD Evaluation Process
> Planning Task Force" (Task Force) to determine the scope of the evaluation.
> The Task Force decided that seven questions, among others, would take
> priority. Those questions, which are the focus of this report, address the
> effectiveness of intellectual property protections, compliance with
> registration restrictions, competition, the reasonableness of the legal
> framework, and regulatory issues.
>
> The new gTLD start-up periods proved generally effective at protecting the
> interests of trademark holders, but suffered from other problems. The lack
> of any screening or verification in the .info Sunrise period led to serious
> abuses, including an unusually high number (43%) of registrations that had
> to be cancelled or transferred. The intellectual property claim process that
> .biz established operated more smoothly, but was extremely complicated. It
> proved fairer than a Sunrise period because parties without registered
> trademarks ? including individuals ? could defend registrations by
> demonstrating a legitimate interest or right. The .name system of defensive
> registrations was complex too, and in an unrestricted TLD would not be
> consistent with attracting new users and uses to the DNS. Looking to the
> future, these experiences suggest several options: (i) a Sunrise period that
> verifies registrations by use of online databases and other means in a
> cost-effective manner; (ii) notice to prospective registrants and trademark
> holders of their respective claims prior to adjudication, perhaps on the
> basis of the familiar UDRP rather than the new "STOP" procedure .biz used;
> or (iii) reliance on UDRP alone, as simpler and appropriate given that
> trademark registrations may constitute only 2 - 3% of all registrations.
>
> The process .info and .biz used to allocate names ? called a "round
> robin" -- was criticized for enabling manipulation of the system. Some
> registrars kept their list of desired names short and offered coveted slots
> to their best customers. Others used registrars they controlled to do the
> same, while they opened their own lists to the general public. (Initial
> efforts by .biz to design an alternative distribution system for led a court
> to determine it would have constituted an illegal lottery.) The .name
> registry sought to eliminate the advantage of submitting shorter lists by
> using random batch processing, but that did not prevent registrants from
> submitting duplicate requests through multiple registrars. Admittedly, the
> dilemma of how best to allocate names does not have an easy solution. Other
> options include first-come, first-served; auctions; and reverse Dutch
> auctions. The most appropriate method depends to a great extent on which
> underlying values should be given priority. It also depends on which entity
> should benefit from the monetary rewards that certain names generate. Both
> subjects require more discussion within the ICANN community.
>
> Both the .biz and .name gTLDs are subject to restrictions that limit
> registrations to commercial purposes and to personal names, respectively.
> Random sampling indicated fewer problems than expected in .biz, with 1.8% of
> the registrations appearing to fail to satisfy the criteria and another 9.6%
> being unclear. In .name, where it was somewhat easier to estimate
> noncompliance, 10.6% of registrations raised questions, with another .8%
> unclear. While the registries are not obligated to enforce the restrictions
> through verification, there are simpler methods, such as random screening,
> or heightened scrutiny when a registrant reaches a certain number of
> registrations, which could help. Another solution is to recognize the
> difficulty of enforcing restrictions on global registries and adopt the
> model offered by the .com, .net and .org TLDs, which were once restricted
> but are no longer.
>
> The new gTLDs have introduced some competition, but how much is debatable.
> Examining market share, extent of actual choice and price elasticity
> suggests that impact has been minimal. Other evidence, however, indicates
> that TLD expansion has attracted about 20% new registrants and led to new
> uses among 40 ? 60% of registrants. The most significant contribution has
> been the development of facilities-based competition. As a result, new
> providers of registry services have been able to compete effectively with
> the incumbent registry, VeriSign, on that basis. Innovation has played a
> supporting role, and may become increasingly important as the three largest
> registries work to distinguish themselves from one another.
>
> The agreements that underpin the new gTLDs reflect a level of detail that
> may not be necessary for future TLDs. While it was understandable for ICANN
> to have erred on the side of caution as it undertook initial expansion, the
> resulting legal framework is cumbersome. There was relatively strict
> insistence that the agreements adhere to key provisions of the original
> proposals, although it appears that such rigidity was not always the wisest
> course. While the agreements are relatively uniform, there are some cases --
> such as the requirement that smaller, sponsored TLDs use only
> ICANN-accredited registrars ? where divergence would have made sense. In a
> future round, it should be possible to use a streamlined base agreement and
> limit appendices to those necessary to ensure critical elements of registry
> performance and compliance with ICANN policies. There should also be more
> flexibility in the agreements to enable both ICANN and the registries to
> address routine issues.
>
> Launching a new gTLD is not for the faint of heart. The experiences of the
> six that have done it already, and the wisdom the community as a whole as
> gained, should provide valuable assistance to those TLDs that follow.
>
> GNSO Secretariat

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827