[governance] New TLDs

Wed Apr 18 05:27:33 EDT 2007

Dear all,

Sorry to intervene again in a discussion between two distinguished germans
:-)

Just a few additional elements, following my previous post :

1) Michael wrote :
"Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the
question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat
different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD".

This is precisely the reason for the distinction introduced in the GAC's
gTLD principles between the three dimensions :
- Introduction : whether a given string should be introduced at all
- Delegation : who should have the responsibility of managing the registry
- Operation : day to day rules of management and relations with the
registrars and registrants

The three questions are not completely separate but still have to be
addressed  each on its own merits.

2) The various hypothetical but illustrative cases that Wolfgang is giving
show the obvious complexity of the introduction of Geo TLDs and cultural
TLDs - not to mention any other type of string.

In addition, the criteria for those strings will be different from those
that should be applicable to other types. The .xxx "telenovela" with its
many episodes was enough to dissipate the illusion of a of a possible single
"sponsored TLD" category.

This demonstrates that TLDs cannot be treated with the same freedom as
(second-level) domain names, just allowing any submission on a first
come-first serve basis. In fact, significatively, they have never been
treated as such. And there is no political consensus in favor of such an
unrestricted rule - even if defending that position is perfectly legitimate,
respectable and even useful.

3) The administrative burden is potentially enormous for ICANN staff and
Board if each application is evaluated independently. Some sort of evolutive
guidelines or clear methodology is necessary.

By the way, as the unrestricted introduction of TLDs is unlikely to take
place, those who desire a broad range of new TLDs should precisely be the
ones most in favor of some common rules that could streamline the process.

4) Definition of the "relevant governments or public authorities", nature of
the candidate registry (non-profit or not), level of support in the
community, potential opposition from other communities ..... These are only
some of the questions to address. The least one can say it that it amounts
to a multi-dimensional criteria choice where, as mathematics teach us, it is
difficult to find optimal solutions.

This will ultimately be a question of balance of interests and of
transparency in the decision-making. And of establishing "shared principles,
norms, rules and decision-making procedures" if this expression rings a bell
for former WSIS participants ...

This is why the GAC Principles for new gTLDs say in the last paragraph :
"The evaluation procedures and criteria for introduction, delegation and
operation of new TLDs should be developed and implemented with the
participation of all stakeholders."

5) As a consequence, now that the GAC has issued its Principles for gTLDs,
as soon as the gNSO achieves its own preliminary work, time will be ripe for
a collective and truly multi-stakeholer effort to identify those "evaluation
procedures and criteria".

An open session during a future ICANN meeting could be the prelude to an
open working group on that important issue.

But most of all, given the present disparity of visions on how to move
forward on new gTLDs as well as the tensions and bitterness produced by the
.xxx process, such a collective effort is, I believe, an absolute
prerequisite before any call for the introduction of new gTLDs is drafted by
the ICANN staff.

Best

Bertrand

On 4/18/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> Best regards to Las Vegas!
>
> There is no conflict in my statements. My position is rather clear. I say
> yes to new TLDs, including GEO-TLDs (cities, regions, lakes, mountains
> etc.). I recognize Bertrands intervention that cities are probably a special
> case (like regions which are politically or culturally defined like Saxony,
> the Basque Country, Texas or Tibet). In such a case both the GAC ccTLD
> principles and the GAC gTLD principles offer a procedure. I would reject a
> concrete proposal where the affected local Internet community has
> fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of Nigeria establish a
> company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some problems. The
> applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the support of the
> LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the Lord Mayor of
> London is against .london but the local Internet community of London wants
> to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. In the case of
> .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu would run the
> .london registry against the will of the public authority and the LIC of
> London. But if the London public authority accepts that a .london registry
> is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) this is fine to me.
> There is no need that ICANN has to look into the details of the local
> regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, that the Local Community
> has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC is divided, more discussion
> is needed. But  a simple NO by the Lord Mayor is no argument against the
> project. You have to ask the user and potential registrants whether they
> want to have it or not. Catalans wanted to have . cat. Asians wanted to have
> .asia. If Londoners (or Leipzigers) want to  have .london or .leipzig, they
> should get it.
>
> Best regards
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de]
> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 03:55
> An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org;
> goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang
> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in
> Domain Names
>
>
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction
> of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD
> principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the relevant
> public authority does not have "serious" problems with the specific
> proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to decide if
> the objections coming from the relevant public authority are "serious"
> enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California based
> organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local Internet
> community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? Or a local
> multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a forum?
>
> Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the
> question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat
> different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could
> imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, but
> actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying for
> running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private company
> that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown starts offering
> domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long before even the
> application process of ICANN has started, not giving investors the full
> picture of the application process and its risk. Honestly, would you trust
> such a company and would you like to see it running that particulare
> Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of introducing the new name
> space?
>
> Michael, Las Vegas
> _______________________________________________________________
> SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
> kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070418/de32635e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070418/de32635e/attachment.txt>