[ga] New TLD Paradigm

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

In advance of the upcoming Amsterdam session on new
gTLDs, Michael Palage has submitted some interesting
comments for consideration:

[excerpt]

39.	The current gTLD paradigm of Unsponsored
Restrictive (.BIZ, .NAME, and .PRO); Unsponsored
Unrestrictive (.COM, .NET, .ORG and .INFO); Sponsored
(2000 - .MUSEUM, .COOP and .AERO), Sponsored (2003 -
.TRAVEL, .JOBS, MOBI,  and .CAT) and legacy gTLDs
(.INT, .EDU, .GOV and .MIL), does not scale in
connection with the continued expansion of the root

40.	As noted by several stakeholders, a number of the
recently selected sTLDs should have been more properly
characterized as gTLD given the sheer magnitude and
ambiguity of the proposed ?communities.?
 
41.	Further reinforcing the non-scalability of the
current paradigm is the position of certain
constituencies within the GNSO that only sponsored
TLDs should be added to the root.
 
42.	Should ICANN adopt a sTLD only approach toward the
continued expanse of the name space, it will only lead
to more applicants attempting to fit a square peg into
a round hole, thus undermining the principles of
predictability which is so important to this process. 
Moreover, any attempts by ICANN to adopt sTLDs only
may unfairly benefit the existing unsponsored registry
operators. 

43.	Therefore, a new paradigm must be proposed for the
gTLD space which allows for meaningful expansion and
competition, while at the same time taking into
account the strong preference for the concept of
sponsored/chartered TLDs as expressed by a portion of
the community.

44.	The proposed new paradigm  is one based upon the
level of involvement that the registry operator
exercises in connection with reviewing the
registrant?s qualifications. For the purposes of this
discussion, a registry would fall into one of either
two categories: Registrant Verified ? where the
registry operator verifies the qualifications  of the
registrant prior to the domain name being added to the
zone (a.k.a. ?going live?) and Registrant Unverified ?
where the registry operator undertakes no prescreening
of qualifications involving the registrant. 

45.	For purposes of this discussion. The existing
gTLDs would be classified as Registrant Verified based
upon the screening protocols by the registry operator
in connection with the registrants: .MUSEUM, .COOP,
.AERO, .TRAVEL, .JOBS, and .CAT, whereas the following
existing gTLDs would be classified as Registrant
Unverified based upon the lack screening protocols by
the registry operator prior to registration: .COM,
.NET, .ORG, .INFO, .BIZ, .NAME, .PRO, and .MOBI.

46.	It is also useful to note that all legacy gTLDs
(.GOV, .EDU, .MIL, .INT and .ARPA) would all qualify
as Registrant Verified.

47.	Although many in the community have been strong
advocates of sponsored TLDs because they believed they
represented a minimal risk for abusive registrations,
the sheer magnitude of some of the recently approved
sponsored communities with potential registrants
numbering in the billions serious calls into question
their initial assumption.

48.	Under this new proposed paradigm, there would be
no limit to the number of Registrant Verified TLDs
that ICANN would process. However, in connection with
Registrant Unverified TLDs, ICANN would agree advance
to allocate a set number of these TLDs over a given
period of time, i.e. ten (10) Registrant Unverified
TLDs over a five (5) year period of time. Given the
scarcity of these Registrant Unverified TLDs, ICANN
could use an auction or lottery mechanism .

49.	Given the potential for public policy concerns by
the GAC, all potential applicants/bidders would have
to pay a fee to allow ICANN to pre-screen the
application prior to active bidding. 

The complete document may reviewed from this page: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00180.html


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