[ALAC] Fwd: Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Oct 11 15:24:08 UTC 2012
An interesting message regarding the Advice Letter of the Consumer
Metrics group.
Opinions welcome as this will be a topic of discussion in the GNSO
Council on Saturday afternoon in Toronto.
Alan
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>CC: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:52:15 -0400
>Subject: [council] Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs
>
>All,
>
>A number of us have recently been discussing the motion up for a
>vote next week in Toronto to adopt the Working Group's draft advice
>letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition. First, I
>want to commend the working group on the job that they have done and
>the meticulous detail incorporated in the letter. I believe that
>they group did as good of a job as anyone could do to come up with
>metrics based on their best predictions as to what the future gTLD
>landscape would look like. At the time that the recommendations
>were created, and the draft advice letter went out for comment, no
>one knew the number of applications, types of applications, etc.
>
>Now, after the reveal, we have more information about the landscape
>and believe that the original criteria included in the final advice
>letter may not be well suited for a large number of gTLD
>applications (which later will be TLDs). While much of the criteria
>is extremely relevant towards the open gTLDs, they do not
>necessarily map well to a large number of the other closed, brand,
>single-registrant or even geographic based TLDs. Over 1/3 of the
>applications are for brand TLDs, with many of them being
>single-registrant TLDs. Some of the criteria included in the
>measure of consumer choice section of the Final Advice Letter, for
>example, are not applicable to the brand TLDs and may, in fact, give
>misleading results when looking at the issue of consumer choice. By
>way of example, the criteria for consumer choice looks at whether
>the website clearly discloses the benefits and restrictions of the
>name space (Section 2.1). This makes sense for open registries, but
>for a closed TLD (like .neustar), it does not. As a fairly large
>$2.5 billion public company, if Neustar converted its homepage to
><http://www.neustar>http://www.neustar, we would not put anywhere on
>our home page the benefits/restrictions of .neustar. As a closed
>TLD, there would be no other registrants other than Neustar itself
>and using up valuable space on our homepage to even mention why were
>are using .neustar just would not make sense. In addition, Section
>2.3 (gTLD registry benefits and restrictions should be
>understandable to registrants and users) and 2.12 (geographic
>diversity of registrants) would also not be applicable to the
>closed-TLDs or regional TLDs. There are other examples.
>
>Therefore, our recommendation is that the Council consider sending
>back the letter to the Working Group to revise their advice based on
>the current gTLD application landscape before passing such advice on
>to the board. If this means bifurcating the advice based on the
>type of TLD, that may make some sense as well.
>
>We do not want the group to be disheartened, because they did an
>excellent job with the information that was available at the
>time. We now know more and believe that although the letter
>presents an excellent starting point, it needs some additional work.
>
>We look forward to discussing this further in Toronto.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
>Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax:
>+1.703.738.7965 /
><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list