.DOC File
NEW gTLDs OVERVIEW
The ALAC may wish to consider making the following statements, or variations upon them. These general statements are made from a “consumer” or “user” perspective, the word consumer defined as individual Internet user, not “domain-name registrants,” though I do, in my last suggested comment, mention registrants in the point(s) brought out by the Dec. 08 DOJ letter to DOC on new gTLDs.
Certainly I do not suggest that these comments represent the only general statements the ALAC should make regards new gTLDs. I address specificities in my individual comments in a separate document, in which I do not presume to discuss topics such as new gTLD registration costs, IDN issues and other important elements. These I leave to others with greater expertise and interest in these matters.
General statements on new gTLDs:
The user community has demonstrated significant concern that ICANN has other internal priorities it should resolve, and competencies it has yet to demonstrate, before the introduction of potentially hundreds of new gTLDs. Particularly, the user community has expressed dissatisfaction with the process and evolution of the current Registrar Accreditation Agreement, agreeing in principle to the current set of amendments only if further amendments can be considered and added in a timely manner. Further, though ICANN has made strides of late in improving its contract compliance and enforcement activities, and being somewhat more transparent about them, ICANN remains widely viewed as reluctant to enforce its own regulations, slow to react to user complaints of registrar misconduct, and even dismissive of those who question the status quo.
o In addition, beyond relatively casual reassurances, ICANN has not properly addressed the issue of safety and stability in the current realm. Fraud and abuse are problematic in the ccTLD community, particularly in the .cn domain, while ICANN stands reluctant to intervene because of sovereignty or unrelated issues. Other examples of domain abuse continue as ICANN appears to minimize its role by describing its scope in ever-narrowing terms. So the user community – as described via submissions to various discussion lists, submissions directly to ICANN, statements made to the trade and general press – questions whether the current “system” can accomodate 500 or more new gTLDs until some basic issues are addressed. The ALAC has made this point repeatedly, as far back as the San Juan meeting. It is important to note that the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in its December 18 letter to ICANN Board Chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush, contend that ICANN needs to: “Ensure that the introduction of a potentially large number of new gTLDs, including internationalized top level domains, will not jeopardize the stability and security of the DNS…and that ICANN has sufficient capacity to enforce contract compliance with an as-yet-unknown number of new contracting parties, especially in light of outstanding questions regarding existing contracts (such as the proposed amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreements and problems with the WHOIS data accuracy reporting system).”
The user community questions, in general, whether ICANN is the appropriate venue to adjudicate morality and public order. But specifically, we strongly object to the notion that objections based on morality and public order will be considered by the International Chamber of Commerce. The ICC has not demonstrated a credible track record of representing consumer and non-commercial interests. It is an interest group made up of business concerns. We support and agree with the NCUC’s concerns in this regard. We would like to see discussion opened immediately, before the new gTLD program is implemented, with the goal to surface and consider other organizations to fill this role, whose policy interests are not so circumscribed.
Though the rise in use of search engines may make TLD suffixes less relevant over time, the user community still believes consumer confusion may result from the introduction of new TLDs if no concurrent consumer education takes place. Some monies should be set aside from the substantial price tags of new gTLD registration to create a consumer education fund, or at least increase the capacity and competence of ICANN public outreach, so consumers may better understand the impact of new gTLDs on the marketplace. Most consumers would be hard-pressed to identify a TLD other than .com, let alone differentiate between geography, branding, intellectual property concerns, and, of course, bad actors who might seek to exploit the system by creating, for example, a .sleepdisorder domain open to pharmaceutical manufacturers of sleeping pills.
In light of ICANN’s failure to complete and disseminate a comprehensive economic study of the new gTLD market requested by its own board in 2006, the user community takes note of the December 3 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the US DOC NTIA: “ICANN’s approach to TLD management demonstrates that it has adopted an ineffective approach with respect to its oblication to promote competition at the registry level…We respectfully suggest the DOC refrain from expressing satisfaction with ICANN’s progress toward the goal of promoting competition among TLDs unless and until ICANN develops a credible and effective policy that compels it to employ tools such as competitive bidding to manage TLDs in a manner that safeguards the interest of registrants in obtaining high quality domains at the lowest possible prices.”
Beau Brendler
NA RALO
Jan. 2, 2009
