FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
Holly Raiche - Author's note: This is my proposed First draft. At this stage, I have not made any recommendations. Clearly, we support most of them. My focus has on those issues impacting end users rather than the issues concerning registries/registrars. Happy to consider if others think we should say something on that as well.
The ALAC would not support proceeding with a second round of new gTLD auctions at this stage. The Draft Report makes it clear that a significant amount of further information is necessary before it is possible to say that the introduction of new gTLDs has increased competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.
The Report notes that two major studies are being undertaken - on DNS Abuse and a survey by trademark owners – to help address the information gap. Another major gap is sufficiently disaggregated and analysed data from the Contractual Compliance area. From the ALAC perspective, perhaps the most glaring gap in any information on consumer trust. As the Report reported:
However, the Review Team noted that the surveys did not define consumer trust (and other key terms) and contained few questions that explored the objective behavior of the survey respondents that could serve as a proxy for consumer trust. Moreover, certain responses that identified factors relevant to consumer trust -- such as reputation and familiarity -- were broad concepts that did not lend themselves to providing precise guidance for either future applicants, ICANN, or other community stakeholders. (P. 28)
Another important area for further analysis is the high level (63%) of new gTLDs that are ‘parked’. (p. 33) How are they being used, or likely to be used now and the future. More importantly, can they be counted as contributing to consumer choice.
One of the areas of most concern for ALAC are about end users and their reactions to new gTLDs. Again, there is a real lack of data on customer confusions. Quoting again from the report:
Although there was some data available about the benefits of the expansion for consumer end users and registrants, we lacked specific data about the risks of confusion. As a result, our analysis on this topic is incomplete. (p. 57)
An important related issue is what is clearly a failure in dealing with confusing strings. Table 17 of the Report (p. 120) lists the single and plural strings delegated, where in some cases, both the singular and plural strings were allowed; in other cases not. There must be a clear policy and enforcement of this issue to avoid further end user confusion.
Another area for further data is the question on the extent to which end users use domain names at all. According to the Report over half of the end users search for sites using search engines rather than specific gTLDs. (p. 58)
However, the Report does suggest that end users have some expectation that there will be a connection between the specific gTLD and the website. (p. 64) Indeed, their expectations are that there will be restrictions on registrations to reflect that connection. (p. 67) This strengthens the ALAC view that all applications for new gTLDs should contain a public interest commitment (PIC) that details how the name will relate to the registrars and their registrant’s use of the new gTLD.
The Report gives special attention to concerns with sensitive and regulated strings. These are the strings identified by both the GAC and the ALAC as of particular concern as their use can be misleading in sensitive areas such as health, the law, etc. And again, the complaints data available is not sufficiently clear to identify whether or not additional recommendations are needed. (pp 83-4)
Another important issue for the ALAC is the small number of successful applicants from the ‘Global South”. The Report’s focus on this area has been, in its words, the ‘inequities’ in the process: the application process itself, the cost, the available support. We would also suggest further investigation into why there were so few applications; were there factors other than cost or difficulty in application process that played a part. While we do support the Report’s recommendations on outreach, application simplification (pp 110-11), we propose further investigation into possible other factors that may have contributed to the small number of successful applications from the Global South.