I'll repeat something I said earlier about hoping that we will focus first on resolving "our" role in the oversight of the processes before we start debating how many/what kind. Our first task is to regain the appropriate role for the Council, determine how and who to involve from other SOs, ACs, and of course ensure the participation of the ALAC. We will hear more from the Board tomorrow I suspect on this question. Hopefully, our views have prevailed. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:16 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] White paper on new gTLDs Hello Philip,
On profit / not for profit
My point was that it is difficult to judge a proposal solely because it is non-profit or for-profit, just as it is difficult to judge a proposed TLD on the basis of being sponsored or non-sponsored. I have heard concern in some parts of the community that whenever a new TLD is created or a cctld is re-purposed, many registrants in that TLD feel compelled to protect their "brand" in that new TLD. Some parts of the community feel more comfortable if a TLD has some restrictions that narrow the potential set of registrants (e.g .aero). This does not seem to me to be an issue of sponsored versus unsponsored, but whether a TLD should be restricted to a defined set of registrants or open to anyone to register. The former model does remind me a bit of the system of exclusive clubs (e.g some golf clubs) which had tight constraints on new members (e.g male only from a particular cultural background), versus clubs which are open to any new members (e.g public golf courses). In the long run, the public golf courses seem to do better. Of course clubs can still be created for specific purposes, without being overly restrictive on accepting new members. A related issue is that if ICANN decides to allow a new TLD because it is constrained in someway (e.g .name with third level names), how does the new TLD evolve to respond to the market (ie how do the constraints change). The ICANN model is not scalable if it wants to become involved in all aspects of the operation of a TLD (e.g what qualifications are required to register in .pro). It is preferable for ICANN to focus on the security and stability aspects of a new TLD, and check that changes don't impact on the security and stability aspects. It seems to me that ICANN should not be getting involved in picking a TLD on the basis of its registrants, but should be more concerned about ensuring that the new TLD works (ie meets Internet standards), meets a minimum level of reliability (ie has a service level agreement), and has a back-up (should either the technical or financial backing of the TLD change). This is not to say that there are not legitimate legal concerns about mis-use of domains names (which includes "passing off", phishing etc), and these concerns do need solutions. Again these are my personal views only, and it would be good to establish an appropriate forum for debate. Regards, Bruce Tonkin