[ga] ICANN Staff on the purposes for adding new TLDs

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From the document, "New TLDs ? Past Decisions and
Documents"
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-tlds-31aug05.htm

C. The purposes for adding new TLDs. 

In seems appropriate that the selection of the types
of TLDs to be introduced initially reflect an
assessment of the purposes for adding new TLDs. In
discussions generally within the Internet community
over the past several years, as well as in more recent
discussions in the DNSO, various advantages of new
TLDs have been cited. These advantages can be grouped
in three broad categories: enhancement of competition
in the provision of registration services, enhancement
of the utility of the DNS, and enhancement of the
available number of domain names. 

1. Enhancing competition for registration services. 

One of the main motivations for the change in policy
reflected in the White Paper was a "widespread
dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in
domain name registration." At the time of the White
Paper, registrations in the open gTLDs (.com, .net,
and .org) were made by a single source (Network
Solutions) at a price fixed by its cooperative
agreement with the U. S. Government. Although
registrations were also available through over 200
ccTLDs worldwide, the overwhelming majority of those
ccTLDs were restricted to registrants that were
affiliated with the countries involved and the
relatively few "open" ccTLDs were not extensively
used. 

Since the establishment of ICANN in November 1998, the
competitive conditions have changed significantly.
Beginning in June 1999, competition was introduced at
the registrar level for registration services and now
45 different accredited registrars receive equivalent
access to the central registry for .com, .net, and
.org. Competition at the registrar level is robust,
resulting in prices significantly lower than a year
ago and a much larger array of service offerings from
which consumers may choose. In addition to this
dramatic growth in competition in .com, .net, and
.org, competition from the ccTLDs has also increased.
Many formerly "closed" ccTLDs have begun to permit
registrations by companies not affiliated with their
countries; "open" ccTLDs have become more accepted
within registrants worldwide. 

The encouragement of competition in registration
services continues to be a major goal of the Internet
community. In its 18/19 April 2000 statement, the
Names Council stressed that "[i]mplementation [of new
TLDs] should promote competition in the domain-name
registration business at the registry and registrar
levels." 

Although competition has increased markedly in the
past year at the registrar level, the registry (the
authoritative database that maps names within the TLD
to IP addresses) for all three "open" gTLDs is still
operated by a single company, Network Solutions. This
situation limits the effectiveness of overall
competition and, even aside from strictly competitive
issues, gives rise to concerns over the Internet
community's lack of vendor diversity. Some have argued
these concerns (competition and vendor diversity) make
it appropriate to introduce one or more alternative,
fully open, globally available TLDs. Others have
argued that these concerns are no longer so pressing
as to justify adding new open TLDs. As discussed in
detail in point 2 below, they assert that having
additional, undifferentiated TLDs would tend to reduce
the utility of the DNS by increasing inter-TLD
confusion. (E.g., <example.com> would be confused with
<example.firm>.) 

One concern sometimes raised in this connection is
that .com may have become so highly preferred in the
market to any other TLD that effective competition
among open TLDs is no longer likely. Those raising
this concern sometimes point out that .com enjoys a
vastly superior market share compared to .net and
.org, with .com accounting for 80% of the total
registrations in .com, .net, and .org. This
predominance of .com registrations continues even
though all three TLDs are offered by 45 registrars
fiercely trying to sell registrations. 

. 

. 

2. Enhancing the utility of the DNS. 

Another motivation frequently cited for introducing
new TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility
of the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of
adding new TLDs should be evaluated based on whether
addition of the new TLDs: 

would make it easier for Internet users to find the
web sites and other Internet resources they are
seeking and 

would make it easier for the providers of Internet
resources to be found. 

This view tends to favor adding special-purpose TLDs
and to disfavor adding undifferentiated, open TLDs. To
help keep TLDs distinct and meaningful, it has been
suggested that TLDs should be given "charters" which
define the purposes for which they are intended. These
charters are intended to promote the distinctiveness
of TLDs over time. Advocates of chartered TLDs note
that all the present gTLDs (including .com, .net, and
.org) have defined uses, see RFC 1591. The definitions
of the uses of .com, .net, and .org, however, have not
been enforced since 1996, when it was decided to
suspend screening of registrations to reduce delays in
processing applications for registration. 

The view that enhancement of the utility of the DNS
should be a chief goal in introducing new TLDs is
reflected by the first three principles outlined in
the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17
April 2000 supplemental report: 

"1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain
the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how
the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be
perceived by the relevant population of net users. The
application may contemplate that the proposed TLD
string will have its primary semantic meaning in a
language other than English. 

"2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should
explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where
relevant and desired. 

"3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string
should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be
clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the
marketing and functionality associated with the
string." 

A few have suggested that these principles (which were
approved in WG-C by a vote of 46 yes, 21 no, 1
abstain) preclude the introduction of any new fully
open TLDs. These people argue that introducing new
unrestricted-use TLDs would not increase the
availability of distinctive domain names, but would
instead decrease the meaning of domain names generally
by encouraging registration of domain names that are
distinguished only by unmeaningful TLD labels. While
the principles of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental
report point strongly toward introducing
limited-purpose, distinct TLDs, most of those favoring
them urge that they be applied flexibly so as not to
rule out the introduction of one or more fully open,
undifferentiated TLDs. 

Differentiated types of TLDs that have been proposed
for introduction under a chartered-TLD approach
include: 

restricted-use commercial TLDs, such as .travel (for
the travel industry), .movie (for web sites dedicated
to particular films), and .banc (for financial
institutions). 

TLDs defined by some geographic region, but not
qualifying as ccTLDs under current policies. 

a TLD restricted to adult uses (.xxx or .sex). 

TLDs designated for use by particular types of
non-commercial organizations, such as .museum and
.union. An existing example of this type of TLD is
.edu. 

TLDs for use by various affinity groups. 

TLDs intended for advocacy uses, such as .protest. 

a TLD devoted to domains registered by individuals for
their personal use. 

Some have suggested that differentiated TLDs should be
introduced in various systematic ways (e.g., by
following a predefined taxonomy). Others have favored
introducing each specific TLD according to a proposal
by an organization interested in sponsoring the TLD
that demonstrates the desire, legitimacy, and
resources to introduce and manage the TLD in an
appropriate manner. 

. 

. 

3. Enhancing the number of available domain names. 

A third reason cited for introducing additional TLDs
is that doing so would increase the number of domain
names available for registration. This rationale is
usually based on the premise that "all the good names
are already taken" and that adding TLDs would increase
the supply of "good" names. 

In fact, the number of second-level domain names
within a single TLD is quite large (over 1098) and
claims that any particular TLD is effectively
exhausted are, as a technical matter, misplaced. (Even
.com has only approximately 108 names registered).
Some, however, have noted that the group of useful or
desirable names is much smaller than the total
theoretically possible. While this observation is
correct, even a slight lengthening of possible
second-level domain names increases the availabile
possibilities much more dramatically than the addition
of new TLDs. For example, under the currently followed
format rules increasing second-level domain-name
length by one character multiplies the possible domain
names by 37, while adding three new TLDs similar to
.com, .net, and .org would only double them. 

Some participants in the discussion have asserted that
adding undifferentiated TLDs for the purpose of
increasing the number of available domain names runs
counter to the goal of enhancing the distinctness of
DNS names. In this view, adding names that differ from
existing ones only because they fall into new,
undifferentiated TLDs would impair the utility of the
DNS. These participants argue that expansion of the
DNS name space should not be accomplished by making
available additional names that are likely to be
confused with existing names, particularly since
distinctive TLDs could instead be created. 



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