[NA-Discuss] Article from Tech Liberation

[Glenn McKnight]

http://techliberation.com/2009/02/20/icanns-revised-gtld-proposal-still-comes-up-short/

Berin Szoka
ICANN's Revised gTLD Proposal Still Comes Up Short

ICANN has just released a second
draft<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm>of
its Applicant Guidebook, which would guide the creation of new generic
topmore generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such as .BLOG, .NYC or .BMW. As
ICANN itself declared
(PDF<https://par.icann.org/files/paris/BAA_Intro_NewGTLDs_Paris_23Jun08.pdf>),
"New gTLDs will bring about the biggest change in the Internet since its
inception nearly 40 years ago."  PFF Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage and
former ICANN Board member addressed the key problems with ICANN's original
proposal in his  paper *ICANN's "Go/ No-Go" Decision Concerning New gTLDs* (
PDF <http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.3gTLDgonogo.pdf> &
embedded below), released earlier this week.

ICANN deserves credit for its detailed
analysis<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm>
of
the many comments on the original draft which Mike
summarized<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm>
back
in December.  ICANN also deserved credit for addressing two strong concerns
of the global Internet community in response to the first draft:

   - ICANN has removed its proposed 5% global domain name tax on all
   registry services, something Mike explains in greater detail in his
   "Go/No-Go" paper.
   - ICANN has commissioned a badly-needed economic study on the dynamics of
   the domain name system "in broad." But such a study* must* address how
   the fees ICANN collects from specific user communities relate to the actual
   costs of the services ICANN provides. The study should also consider why
   gTLDs should continue to provide such a disproportionate percentage of
   ICANN's funding—currently 90%—given increasing competition between gTLDs and
   ccTLDs (e.g., the increasing use of .CN in China instead of .COM).

These concerns are part of a broader debate:  Will ICANN abide by its
mandate to justify its fees based on recovering the costs of services
associated with those fees, or will ICANN be free to continue "leveraging
its monopoly over an essential facility of the Internet (*i.e.*,
recommending additions to the Internet's Root A Server) to charge whatever
fees it wants?"  If, as Mike has
discussed<http://techliberation.com/2009/01/13/icanns-game-of-chicken-with-the-usg-the-need-for-adult-gao-supervision/>,
ICANN walks away from its existing contractual relationship with the
Department of Commerce and claims "fee simple
absolute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple>"
ownership of the domain name system, who will enforce such a cost-recovery
mandate?

But ICANN simply "kicked the can down the road on the biggest concern": how
to minimize abusive domain name registrations (*e.g.*, cybersquatting,
typosquatting, phishing, etc.) and reduce their impact on consumers. ICANN
seems only to have made a vague promise to engage in additional outreach and
consultation on this problem.  But Mike has proposed a number of potential
solutions that are narrowly tailored to protect brand holders while
respecting the fair use rights of other, including:

   - A *Rebuttable Reserve Names List *that would minimize the need for
   defensive registrations of marks that have been subject to abusive
   registrations by freezing registration of domain names (e.g., DELTA.AIR)
   that precisely correspond to those marks (e.g., Delta Airlines' "Delta"
   trademark)  for the 60 days leading up to the opening of a new TLD (*e.g.
   *, .AIR)—although anyone can rebut this presumption upon making a fair
   use showing under existing UDRP principles.
   - An* Expedited Domain Suspension Policy*, either  as a new policy, or an
   amendment to the existing UDRP, that would provide a faster and more
   cost-effective remedy for abusive domain name registrations on an ongoing
   basis, but only for marks that have been registered with a national
   trademark authority (or the equivalent thereof).
   - A *Uniform Proxy Registration Policy *governing the use of proxy
   services that substitute their own contact information for the
   registration's information in the Whois
database<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS>;
   such baseline practices and safeguards would reduce abuse that could harm
   legitimate users while preserving the option of proxy registration for
   privacy-sensitive users.

Washington Internet Daily (subscription-only) reports that:

ICANN is also rethinking its timeline for launching the gTLD application
process, it said. There will be a third draft guidebook, making it unlikely
applications will be accepted before December, it said. The new draft leaves
provisions on four major issues – security and stability, malicious
misconduct, trademark protection and demand/economic analysis of the need
for new gTLDs - unchanged pending further discussion, ICANN said. Comments
are due April 13.

PFF wil continue to respond to ICANN's call for comment to promote
responsible expansion of the domain name space.  Here's Mike's paper (click
on the rectangle-in-rectangle button at the top right to maximize the iPaper
viewer):


-- 
Glenn McKnight
868 Corbetts Road
Oshawa, Ontario L1K 2E1
905-434-6655
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com