RE: [ga] New TLD Paradigm

["Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh:

No set up, just my version of reality. 

The facts are there are currently various types of TLDs which ICANN has
added to the root in connection with the 2000 proof of concept and the
2004 sTLD: These "types" are sponsored (for-profit), sponsored
(non-profit), non-sponsored-open, and non-sponsored-restrictive.

As demonstrated by the 2004 sTLD there were some problems with some of
the sponsor criteria, and the obvious claims of some TLDs being
masqueraded as sTLDs. This confusion helped no one, and the reason why I
proposed the new paradigm of registrant verified. This provides a much
more bright line scalable solution.

With regard to my comments regarding the GAC. ICANN is a private/public
partnership, and the GAC is a partner in this effort. Although I may not
always agree with the advise of the GAC, one must still account for
their voice in the process. One could elect to stick their head in the
sand and develop a process which ignores the GAC. Personally that is
just a recipe for disaster. Some may argue that it is a receipt for
disaster to give the GAC any input into the new TLD process.

I am trying to find a middle ground where the new TLD process educates
the GAC at every step of the TLD process to minimize any potential
claims of surprise which might prejudice an applicant. Moreover,
identifying any public policy concerns earlier in the process will allow
the applicant to make a business decision regarding a cost/benefit
analysis of proceeding.

Without GAC input into the process, the process will break. Although the
majority of potential applications should not raise GAC public policy
concerns, it is that small handful which may negatively impact the
growth of the name space for the benefit of other users and operators.

Regarding comments regarding staff and the Board, my impression during
my tenure on the board in connection the sTLD round is that the Board
would favor a more objective process. In fact the 2004 sTLD was intended
to be just that prior to the difficulties of the sponsorship committee.
With regard to staff, like all of us they are not perfect. However, I
think Liz Williams has done a very respectable job trying to move this
process forward, as well as the council members that contributed
significantly to the process.

Just my two cent, no set up. Just a fast ball down the middle of the
plate.

Best regards,

Michael




-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:08 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; 'Danny Younger'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD Paradigm


This is a set up. We operate under no paradigm at this moment. 
We operate under rule of men and not law or written rules.

Note all the mentions of "new paradigms" . Everything is decided by the
BoD and staff.

If you do not believe me read through this and then read;

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. 

It is again just a fee to be paid to let ICANN, and not a paradigm
decide who gets what.

You who choose to chase this goose are in for a wild chase.

e



"Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 .


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 






Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.