RE: [ga] New TLD Paradigm
Danny, Thanks for posting this to the GA list. Attached is a full copy of the paper. Would welcome some lively and constructive dialog on the topic. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:22 AM To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ga] New TLD Paradigm 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 Attachment:
New-TLD-Comments-MDP.pdf
|