September 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

FYI - ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 02 Sep '04

02 Sep '04

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm Prepared for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) by Summit Strategies International The full report may be viewed at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm In November 2000, the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) selected seven proposals for new top-level domains (gTLDs): .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro. This was the first effort to expand the domain name system (DNS) since the 1980s, other than by adding "country code top-level domains" that correspond to particular countries or territories. Shortly before the first of the new gTLDs was launched in September 2001, the ICANN Board decided that it was important to evaluate the "proof-of-concept" under which they were introduced. The Board established the "New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force" (Task Force) to determine the scope of the evaluation. The Task Force decided that seven questions, among others, would take priority. Those questions, which are the focus of this report, address the effectiveness of intellectual property protections, compliance with registration restrictions, competition, the reasonableness of the legal framework, and regulatory issues. The new gTLD start-up periods proved generally effective at protecting the interests of trademark holders, but suffered from other problems. The lack of any screening or verification in the .info Sunrise period led to serious abuses, including an unusually high number (43%) of registrations that had to be cancelled or transferred. The intellectual property claim process that .biz established operated more smoothly, but was extremely complicated. It proved fairer than a Sunrise period because parties without registered trademarks including individuals could defend registrations by demonstrating a legitimate interest or right. The .name system of defensive registrations was complex too, and in an unrestricted TLD would not be consistent with attracting new users and uses to the DNS. Looking to the future, these experiences suggest several options: (i) a Sunrise period that verifies registrations by use of online databases and other means in a cost-effective manner; (ii) notice to prospective registrants and trademark holders of their respective claims prior to adjudication, perhaps on the basis of the familiar UDRP rather than the new "STOP" procedure .biz used; or (iii) reliance on UDRP alone, as simpler and appropriate given that trademark registrations may constitute only 2 - 3% of all registrations. The process .info and .biz used to allocate names called a "round robin" -- was criticized for enabling manipulation of the system. Some registrars kept their list of desired names short and offered coveted slots to their best customers. Others used registrars they controlled to do the same, while they opened their own lists to the general public. (Initial efforts by .biz to design an alternative distribution system for led a court to determine it would have constituted an illegal lottery.) The .name registry sought to eliminate the advantage of submitting shorter lists by using random batch processing, but that did not prevent registrants from submitting duplicate requests through multiple registrars. Admittedly, the dilemma of how best to allocate names does not have an easy solution. Other options include first-come, first-served; auctions; and reverse Dutch auctions. The most appropriate method depends to a great extent on which underlying values should be given priority. It also depends on which entity should benefit from the monetary rewards that certain names generate. Both subjects require more discussion within the ICANN community. Both the .biz and .name gTLDs are subject to restrictions that limit registrations to commercial purposes and to personal names, respectively. Random sampling indicated fewer problems than expected in .biz, with 1.8% of the registrations appearing to fail to satisfy the criteria and another 9.6% being unclear. In .name, where it was somewhat easier to estimate noncompliance, 10.6% of registrations raised questions, with another .8% unclear. While the registries are not obligated to enforce the restrictions through verification, there are simpler methods, such as random screening, or heightened scrutiny when a registrant reaches a certain number of registrations, which could help. Another solution is to recognize the difficulty of enforcing restrictions on global registries and adopt the model offered by the .com, .net and .org TLDs, which were once restricted but are no longer. The new gTLDs have introduced some competition, but how much is debatable. Examining market share, extent of actual choice and price elasticity suggests that impact has been minimal. Other evidence, however, indicates that TLD expansion has attracted about 20% new registrants and led to new uses among 40 60% of registrants. The most significant contribution has been the development of facilities-based competition. As a result, new providers of registry services have been able to compete effectively with the incumbent registry, VeriSign, on that basis. Innovation has played a supporting role, and may become increasingly important as the three largest registries work to distinguish themselves from one another. The agreements that underpin the new gTLDs reflect a level of detail that may not be necessary for future TLDs. While it was understandable for ICANN to have erred on the side of caution as it undertook initial expansion, the resulting legal framework is cumbersome. There was relatively strict insistence that the agreements adhere to key provisions of the original proposals, although it appears that such rigidity was not always the wisest course. While the agreements are relatively uniform, there are some cases -- such as the requirement that smaller, sponsored TLDs use only ICANN-accredited registrars where divergence would have made sense. In a future round, it should be possible to use a streamlined base agreement and limit appendices to those necessary to ensure critical elements of registry performance and compliance with ICANN policies. There should also be more flexibility in the agreements to enable both ICANN and the registries to address routine issues. Launching a new gTLD is not for the faint of heart. The experiences of the six that have done it already, and the wisdom the community as a whole as gained, should provide valuable assistance to those TLDs that follow. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Draft minutes GNSO Council meeting 19 August 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 01 Sep '04

01 Sep '04

Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 19 August 2004 in html attachment and plain text. If you would like any changes made please let me know. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat *********************************************** 19 August 2004 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. - proxy to Grant Forsyth (if required) Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - joined call late Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Jisuk Woo Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders/Jisuk Woo Alick Wilson - absent Demi Getschko - absent Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent - apologies 13 Council Members Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 Recording Quorum present at 12:05 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Agenda approved Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 Ken Stubbs seconded by Marilyn Cade moved the adoption of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 The motion carried unanimously Decision 1: The Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 were adopted Item 2: Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. Bruce Tonkin stated that the purpose of the agenda item was for Council to decide whether further changes would be required or whether the report could be published for the first 20 day public comment period. Philip Colebrook expressed concern about: a. the general lack of timelines in the process and b. the manner in which ICANN would fulfill its functions. Kurt Prtitz responded that any request for registry change would come to ICANN through the registry liaison group and at that point a project team would be created to evaluate that registry change. The team would vary, depending on the nature of the registry change, with the right skills, such as business or technical liaisons, to evaluate rapidly. There may be parallel consultation with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and outside expert business analysis. The target timeline for a quick look process would be 2 months between the registry submitting a request and receiving approval for that request. Ken Stubbs stated the need for a process: a. that assured confidentiality between the registry operator and ICANN once the request had been made, b. such as stratifying the nature of the request at the beginning, so that the ICANN staff could effectively quote a timeframe to help with business planning for registrars and registries. He reminded Council that Registries were required to give Registrars a 90 day notice period for any significant change implementation and proposed that the notice period to registrars to be concurrent with the entry into a process. Ken Stubbs expressed concern that during the reconsideration process there could be a halt in the registry operation approved by ICANN if a third party contested the approval. Marilyn Cade agreed with Ken Stubbs that flexibility in the business model was needed in response to the community needs. Kurt Pritz suggested that the quick look process including Board approval could be completed in 2 months, and the ICANN General Council could respond within 2 weeks to provide ICANN's view on whether the registry change required approval under the registry agreement. Kurt asked the gTLD registry constituency for input on a reasonable timeline target for the process? Philip Colebrook responded that the registry constituency had not determined a position on this yet. Paul Verhoef stated the importance of determining the timing of each step so the operational reality matched the expectations The general view on the report was: a. Timelines needed to be clarified - ICANN staff required feedback from the GNSO members a reasonable timeframe, - GNSO Council required feedback from ICANN staff on the timelines b. General Counsel's advice be sought on the gTLD registry constituency concern about the reconsideration process c. More readable public comment format for the report Bruce Tonkin proposed scheduling a GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004 to finalize the report for public comment with the aim to provide clarity on the timelines and answers to the questions on the reconsideration process. Item 3: Update on policy implementation from ICANN Bruce Tonkin commented that policy implementation would be a regular item on the GNSO Council agendas in order to the review the status of policies that have already been approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board - to determine whether the policy had been implemented and - at a future date, input on what measurement had been taken to measure whether the policy had met its objective. 3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003) http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm Bruce Tonkin referred to the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) which took effect in October 2003. and asked Kurt Pritz about other elements of that policy. Kurt Pritz announced that ICANN was required to deliver a report to the Department of Commerce (DOC) in November 2004 on the status and efficacy of the implemented WDRP policy. As a result ICANN would be requesting registrars to complete a questionnaire on the policy implementation. Some policies were not followed through by ICANN to the implementation, for example, deleting names which was considered to be a completed policy because registries were effectively deleting names. 3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003) ICANN recently posted two policies which would be formally effective on 12 November 2004. - Whois Marketing Restriction Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm. - Restored Names Accuracy Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/rnap.htm. Kurt Pritz noted the bylaws requirement to post the policies where a complete overview of Consensus Policies applicable to ICANN accredited registrars could be found and the registrars were given a fax written notice of the policy. Marilyn Cade expressed concerned about community awareness of the implemented policies. Bruce Tonkin suggested that a formal notice be sent to Council so that the constituencies could be informed and suggested a link on the front page of the ICANN website. Item 4: Update on process for new gtlds The MOU between ICANN and US Department of Commerce requires: Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and, d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Bruce Tonkin requested guidance from ICANN staff on what the steps were for implementing a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs and the timing of those steps. Paul Verhoef stated that ICANN staff were not yet in a position to report back as they were still in the process of checking with the Department of Commerce. The OECD report was delivered as well as a report on the business aspects of the gTLDs already implemented that would be made available to the Council and there was outside expertise flowing into the process. Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the timelines and that there may not be time to consult with Council before finalizing the strategy and suggested that timely background information directly available to the GNSO Council would be most useful. Bruce Tonkin proposed requesting a Status report for the next meeting. Item 5: Any Other Business: 1. Update on joint Whois Task Force 1 and 2: Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan, co-chairs of the joint Whois task 1 and 2 which is currently called: "Improving informed consent to the publication of contact data and improving controls for 3rd party access to published contact data" gave an update stating that an initial list of issues obtainable in the near term had been created, the status of previous recommendations would be examined, the focus was on the feasibility of tiered access and sub groups would examine these issues. 2. Marilyn Cade suggested a review of the timelines in the policy development process and a review of the GNSO Council and proposed drafting a motion with the ICANN staff for the next meeting. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan and everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 13:15 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be held on Thursday 9 September 2004 at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 9 September 2004
by Bruce Tonkin 01 Sep '04

01 Sep '04

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 9 September 2004 12:00 UTC (10pm Melbourne, 1pm London, 8am Washington, 5am Los Angeles) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 19 August 2004 Item 2: Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.pdf Review proposed timelines and consider executive summary for public comment. Item 3: Update on process for new gtlds The MOU between ICANN and US Dept of Commerce requires: (from http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm ) Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and, d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Item 4: Update on WHOIS Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0