ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] New TLD Paradigm

Dear Michael,
I am traveling and I have no way to print your text yet. I would like however to give you an opportunity to address the most important point I fear the document misses before I do it. I seached the text for "IDN", "lingual", "national", "ccTLD", "DNSSEC" and found nothing. May be my search did not work properly? So, I looked for ICANN and found 41 occurences. I looked for ISP and found it only on a COI point.

This is odd when you consider that:

- ICANN is confronted to the problem of national lingual versions of its gTLDs
- the name space must address the administration of the lingual TLDs and of their devolution
- the technology is unable to address the multilingual problem
- ICANN is only the US NIC
- the name space is shared between domain names, keywords and aliases (private keywords) and domain names are managed by TLD, private TLDs (within/from private nets and externets), ULDs (User Level Domains, what the users perceive as a TLD)
- the namespace can therefore only resolve in a stable way at the ISP/private net layer.
- the IAB mailing list on the Internet architecture evolution is dead while we see the emergence of various forms of Multi-Internetworking and recognised the "networks of the network of networks" reality, and the need of intergovernance of their governances.
- ICANN is still only the administration and the dissemination of a small Excel spreadsheet, while we start seeing Google heading the take over of the big Excel folder (840 pages ++) of the languages registries.
- etc.

I note that 5 years ago, ICANN published an Internet Coordination Policy document (ICP-3) where the solution (testing, and IETF involvement toward a possible multi-root situation) was very well documented (I carried that experiment for 2 years with more than 30 machines).



On 18:13 22/08/2006, Michael D. Palage said: 
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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>