ALAC:On New TLDs

New Generic Top-Level Domains

A Draft ALAC Response to the Questions Posed by the GNSO The Bold text below comes from the Terms of Reference approved by the GNSO Council on 2 December 2005. The plain text is an attempt to answer the GNSO's questions.

ICANN has set a deadline of January 30 (extended to 31 January 2006) for first-round papers on the subject. Material from this wiki page will be entered as a submission shortly before that deadline.

1 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?
2 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
3 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
4 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains

[edit] 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?

a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.

COMMENT:

New top-level domains enhance the ability of users to identify themselves and the content they create on the Internet. They allow natural communities to express their common interests under a common moniker. They allow persons, companies, and communities from a variety of backgrounds, cultures and languages to identify themselves and their content with an appropriate label that has meaning to them.

ICANN should not “designate” new TLDs but instead should accept and evaluate applications submitted from members of the worldwide Internet community to create and operate new top-level domains.

The questions “how many” and “with what frequency” do not and should not have precise answers. ICANN should accept all applications from qualified entities that either benefit the public interest or enhance competition in the registration of domain names. ICANN should accept and evaluate the applications on their merits, against objective criteria, as soon as practicable given the natural constraints of ICANN’s time, budget, and available personnel. Rather than accept applications at set times, the application process should be a standing part of ICANN’s work. Applicants should be free to submit applications whenever they believe they have completed an application that meets ICANN’s published, objective criteria.

For the foreseeable future, the primary constraint on the introduction of new TLDs will not be technical limits on the number of entries in the root zone file but ICANN’s ability to review and approve applications with its available personnel. Even if ICANN charges an application fee designed to cover the costs of additional evaluation staff, a new evaluation process will move slowly at the beginning due to a lack of institutional experience with the process. Over time and with experience, ICANN should be able to move to a process that approves qualified applicants within a reasonable time, in a predictable manner, and at a reasonable cost to applicants that covers ICANN’s actual time and expense.

Despite long-time stasis, the question is backwards. Introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains -- part of ICANN's initial charter -- should be the default response, to be delayed further only if there are compelling reasons against it.

I used to remember all the domain names of interest a few levels deep until the recent proliferation of extra names. Then again, i still do know all those that count. Although there are bureaucrats who would like to leave their stamp on the internet, most users will stick with using .com .net and .org for the most part.

So now with .museum, the Smithsonian has to fork out for another domain registration and Microsoft has to shell out for .biz. So what will happen with more names? Probably more of the same – companies or organisations who are jealous of their trade names will just accumulate more domains and everybody else will scramble to get what’s left in the .com .org .net and country level spaces.

it seems to me that what most of us want to use are the original generic unrestricted TLDs and given the choice, that’s what we will continue doing. It seems to have worked well so far and i for one am not sure why we need to change anything.

If we do need some new TLDs though, I would like to be the first to suggest: .terror .crime .bureaucracy and .everything (i imagine that these may be in the sponsored category).

I think that it is not the business of ICANN to determine whether new TLDs are useful - it is the business of the applicants, that take their risk, and either fail or succeed. Moreover, the line of reasoning "most people will go for net/com/org anyway" fails to see the many non-business reasons why some people would like to establish a new TLD. In particular, ICANN should pay more attention to the political and social implications of establishing a cultural presence on the Internet (see .cat), which are likely to be the main driver of new applications. Also, there might be imaginative uses for the DNS (.name, in a certain way, was one of them) that are not covered by the traditional, unrestricted, first-come first-served TLDs. (--vb.)

ALAC:On New TLDs

Contents

[edit] 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?