[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
[Fwd: TLD]
- To: Multiple recipients of list <epc-l@iucr.org>
- Subject: [Fwd: TLD]
- From: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:39:30 +0100 (BST)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -- Howard Flack http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html Laboratoire de Cristallographie Phone: 41 (22) 702 62 49 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland Fax: 41 (22) 702 61 08 --Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA) Content-type: message/rfc822 Return-path: <owner-icsti-l@DTIC.MIL> Received: from sc2a.unige.ch ([129.194.48.4]) by sunny.unige.ch (PMDF V6.0-24 #44959) with ESMTPS id <0FWT00AMND7BYX@sunny.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch (ORCPT howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:54:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #44957) id <01JR3O0U9RWW003N9E@sc2a.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch (ORCPT rfc822;howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:54:45 +0200 (MET-DST) Received: from dtics13.dtic.mil ([131.84.1.18]) by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #44957) with ESMTP id <01JR3O0QJ65K003IJQ@sc2a.unige.ch> for howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:54:43 +0200 (MET-DST) Received: from dtics13 (dtics13.dtic.mil [172.16.105.98]) by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA04983; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DTIC.MIL by DTIC.MIL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1807 for ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:52:20 -0400 Received: from mails.dtic.mil (mails.dtic.mil [131.84.1.19]) by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA00565 for <icsti-l@dtics13.dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (sys723e.dtic.mil [131.84.1.2]) by mails.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/990419cac) with ESMTP id IAA16564 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (root@localhost) by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP id IAA16327 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dticexch.dtic.mil (dticexch.dtic.mil [131.84.6.66]) by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP id IAA16323 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dticexch.dtic.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <NVQ11T31>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:04 -0400 From: "Molholm, Kurt" <kmolholm@DTIC.MIL> Subject: TLD Sender: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL> Approved-by: crandall@DTIC.MIL To: ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL Reply-to: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL> Message-id: <AB6780112626D211A6920008C7567CB2037BB449@dticexch.dtic.mil> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)" Importance: low X-Priority: 5 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Comments: cc: Directors <Directors@dtic.mil> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Earlier this year Howard Flack raised the issue of the possible expansion Top Level Domain names and suggested this was a way to make it easier to find STI. Specifically he suggested " If ICANN goes ahead with new TLDs I wondered what might be the interest for the scientific community and for the stm publishing community to push for a TLD like .sci or .stm." For your information the ICANN ( Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains was posted on 13 June 2000 with a deadline for Public Comments of 10 July 2000. One of the areas they are asking for comments is "Enhancing the utility of the DNS." The entire issue paper posted for comment asks 72 questions. Eight questions apply to the issue of enhancing utility. These are examples of the questions regarding enhancement: "Q25: Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the introduction of new TLDs? Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?" Finally I am sorry that Howard thinks my "...example of Elsevier Science is a red herring (a very English expression meaning that it is not a real problem)." My dictionary defines a red herring as something that distracts attention from the real issue. I said "Aren't most publishers/distributors of scientific and technical information part of a larger organization, which would be the more appropriate TLD? I can't imagine DTIC moving from .mil to .sci, and I would be very leery of a large commercial publisher hiding behind a domain name shared by not-for-profit concerns, university presses, or professional societies(Elsevier.sci??)." This was not criticism of Elsevier or any commercial entity, it was merely an example of the problem of what enhancement of the DNS means. What is the reason for enhancement? What is enhanced? It was not meant to distract attention. My message also raised the issue of intellectual property concerns. These are also a subject in the ICANN paper and request for comments. This is the ICANN take on the possibility of expanding Top Level Domains. You may find the background and perhaps scanning the rest of the document useful. This may appear to be a very esoteric subject but just think of the impact ".com" has already made on society. It's a part of the language --- and not only the English language. <<new-tld-topic.htm>> http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm Kurt --Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ) Content-type: application/octet-stream; name=new-tld-topic.htm Content-disposition: attachment; filename=new-tld-topic.htm Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <!-- saved from url=3D(0034)http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm --> <HEAD> <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"Adobe PageMill 3.0 Win"> <TITLE>ICANN | Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level = Domains</TITLE> <META CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type"> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"95%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%"> <P><TABLE BORDER=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0"> <tbody>=20 <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"7%"> </TD>=20 <TD WIDTH=3D"25%"><IMG = SRC=3D"http://www.icann.org/logos/icann-logo.gif" WIDTH=3D"188" HEIGHT=3D"145" NATURALSIZEFLAG=3D"0" = ALIGN=3D"BOTTOM"=20 ALT=3D"ICANN Logo"></TD>=20 <TD WIDTH=3D"68%"> <P><CENTER><FONT SIZE=3D"+3" FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN Yokohama = Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level = Domains</FONT></CENTER></P> <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Posted: 13 June 2000<BR> Deadline for <A HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds">Public Comments</A>: = 10 July 2000</FONT></CENTER> </TD> </TR></tbody>=20 </TABLE></P> <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT></CENTER></P> <H3><CENTER><U><FONT = FACE=3D"Arial">CONTENTS</FONT></U></CENTER></H3> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. <A = HREF=3D"#I">Background</A></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. <A HREF=3D"#IA">Present Structure of = the Domain-Name System.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. <A HREF=3D"#IB">History of = Discussions.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. <A HREF=3D"#IC">Names Council = Recommendation on New TLDs.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. <A HREF=3D"#ID">Action in Yokohama = on New TLDs.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <A HREF=3D"#II">Suggested Principles for the Introduction of New TLDs</A></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. <A HREF=3D"#IIA">The need to = maintain the Internet's stability: a "measured and = responsible" introduction.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. <A HREF=3D"#IIB">A well-controlled, = small-scale introduction as a "proof of concept" for possible = future introductions.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. <A HREF=3D"#IIC">The purposes for = adding new TLDs.</A></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. <A HREF=3D"#IIC1">Enhancing = competition for registration services.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. <A HREF=3D"#IIC2">Enhancing the = utility of the DNS.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. <A HREF=3D"#IIC3">Enhancing the = number of available domain names.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. <A HREF=3D"#IID">Delegation of = policy-formulation requirements for special-purpose TLDs.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">E. <A HREF=3D"#IIE">New TLDs to meet = new types of needs.</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">F. <A HREF=3D"#IIF">Start-up challenges = and the protection of intellectual = property.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <A HREF=3D"#III">Suggested Schedule for the Introduction of New TLDs</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">IV. <A HREF=3D"#IV">Suggested Data = Elements to Be Sought from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs</A></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. <A HREF=3D"#IV-I">Information about = the Proposed TLD</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <A HREF=3D"#IV-II">Information = about the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the TLD</A></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <A HREF=3D"#IV-III">Information = about the Policies and Procedures Applicable to the = TLD</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">V. <A HREF=3D"#V">Call for Statements of Interest in Proposing a New TLD</A></FONT></P> <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT></CENTER></P> <H2><A NAME=3D"I"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. = <U>Background</U></FONT></H2> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">For several years, there have been = proposals to introduce new top-level domains (TLDs) into the Internet = Domain Name System (DNS). After a ten-month-long study, on 18 April 2000 the Names Council of the ICANN Domain Name Supporting = Organization (DNSO) recommended that ICANN adopt a policy under which new TLDs would be introduced in a measured and responsible manner. The ICANN Board of Directors is expected to consider adopting such a policy at its <A HREF=3D"/yokohama/">meeting on 15-16 July 2000 in Yokohama, Japan</A>.</FONT></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IA"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" = FACE=3D"Arial">A.</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial"> <B><U>Present Structure of the = Domain-Name System</U>.</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The DNS allows users to locate computers on the Internet by a name (e.g., <A HREF=3D"/">www.icann.org</A>) rather than a harder-to-remember IP address (e.g., <A = HREF=3D"http://192.0.34.65/">192.0.34.65</A>). The DNS, which was introduced in the mid-1980s, is a distributed database containing resource records that allow you to input another computer's domain name, which your computer then maps to the other computer's IP address.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The DNS has a hierarchical structure, = with each name composed of a series of "labels" separated by dots. The rightmost label in a name refers to the name's = top-level domain (such as .org). Each top-level domain can be divided into many second-level domains (such as icann.org). Second-level = domains can be divided into third-level domains (such as www.icann.org and members.icann.org), and so on.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The selection of TLDs within the DNS is defined by the root-zone file, the contents of which are made available to users on the Internet through the authoritative root server system. Under the White Paper, the responsibilities being transferred to ICANN include oversight of operation of that system.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">For technical reasons, it is convenient to delegate the operation of each top-level domain to a single organization. Currently, the DNS employs top-level domains = consisting of three types:</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The current three-letter codes are = referred to as "generic TLDs." Presently these codes are .com, .net, .org, .edu, .int, .mil, and .gov. Descriptions of the = intended purposes of these TLDs are set forth in <A = HREF=3D"http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">RFC 1591</A>, which was issued in March 1994. No new TLDs in this category have been added since the late 1980s.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Two-letter codes (such as .de, .jp, = and .uk) are used to represent the names of countries and = territories and are referred to as "country-code top-level = domains," or simply "ccTLDs." The policies governing the = establishment, delegation, and operation of ccTLDs are discussed in <A = HREF=3D"/icp/icp-1.htm">ICP-1</A>. Under these policies, ccTLDs are established only for = two-letter codes appearing on the <A = HREF=3D"http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/codlstp1.html">ISO 3166-1 list</A>. A few of these ccTLDs were established in the 1980s, but most were created in the mid- and late-1990s.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">There is one other top-level domain, = .arpa, that has recently been designated to be used for = Internet-infrastructure purposes. This top-level domain is <A = HREF=3D"http://www.iab.org/iab/statement-on-infrastructure-domains.txt">= managed by the IANA</A> in cooperation with the Internet technical = community under the guidance of the Internet Architecture Board.</FONT> </UL> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Within the DNS database, all of the TLDs operate in a similar manner. They are distinguished mainly by their intended use, by which organization operates them, and by who is permitted to register names within them.</FONT></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IB"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">B. = <U>History of Discussions</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although many new ccTLDs were established as new countries and territories joined the Internet, no other new TLDs have been established since the late 1980s. During the 1990s, various proposals were made to implement additional = generic TLDs in the DNS. These proposals have ranged from adding a few gTLDs to several hundred. Different types of TLDs have been = discussed, ranging from TLDs open to registrations by any person or = organization for any use ("unrestricted TLDs") to TLDs intended for registrations by particular types of persons or organizations or for particular uses ("restricted" or = "chartered" TLDs).</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The US Government's June 1998 <A = HREF=3D"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm">White= Paper</A>, which proposed transitioning the Government's = responsibilities for technical coordination of the Internet to a private-sector not-for-profit corporation (now ICANN), noted that the = private-sector coordinating corporation should ultimately have the authority necessary to oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system. The White Paper noted, however, that:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"At least in the short run, a = prudent concern for the stability of the system suggests that expansion of gTLDs proceed at a deliberate and controlled pace to allow for evaluation of the impact of the new gTLDs and well-reasoned evolution of the domain space. New top level domains could be created to enhance competition and to enable the new = corporation to evaluate the functioning, in the new environment, of the = root server system and the software systems that enable shared = registration."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">On 30 April 1999, the World Intellectual Property Organization, which at the request of the US Government had conducted a study of intellectual-property issues in = connection with the DNS and the various proposals for its evolution, = submitted a report to the ICANN Board of Directors. That report <A = HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo-report-5.htm#343">concluded</A> that new gTLDs could be introduced, provided that various = measures were adopted to protect intellectual-property rights and that the new TLDs were introduced in a slow and controlled manner that takes into account the efficacy of the proposed measures in reducing existing problems. Among the intellectual-property protections was a proposed mechanism for protecting globally famous names in any new generic TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">At its meeting in Berlin on 27 May 1999, the ICANN Board <A = HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm#99.48">referred= </A> the issues of TLD expansion and globally famous trademarks to the newly formed ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization = (DNSO).</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">On 25 June 1999, the DNSO Names Council (which manages the process for development of policy recommendatio= ns within the DNSO) <A = HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCmeet.html">created</A>= a group, known as <A = HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html">Working Group C</A>, to study the issues raised by the introduction of new gTLDs. The Names Council also created another group, known as Working Group B, to study issues concerning the protection of famous trademarks in the context of any newly introduced = generic TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IC"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">C. = <U>Names Council Recommendation on New TLDs</U></FONT><FONT = FACE=3D"Arial">.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Working Group C submitted <A = HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgc-report-21mar00.htm">its report</A> to the DNSO Names Council on 21 March 2000 and <A HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/new-gtlds-01apr00.htm">posted the report for public comment</A>. Public comments were solicited and received through the icann.org web-based comment forum and via e-mail to the dnso.org site. Working Group C provided a <A = HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgc-supp-report-17apr00.htm">supplemen= tal report</A> on 17 April 2000.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council discussed these reports and comments at a <A = HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000418.NCtelecon-minutes.html">= telephone conference</A> held on 18/19 April 2000. At that meeting, the Names Council adopted the following statement of its = recommendations, by a vote of 16-0 (two members were absent):</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">DNSO Names Council Statement of = 18/19 April 2000 on New gTLDs</FONT></U></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and related comments indicate = that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible = manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial = phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"Because there is no recent = experience in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a = limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and = that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report = indicates that several types of domains should be considered in the = initial introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, = restricted and chartered top-level domains with limited scope, = non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation should promote = competition in the domain-name registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any = roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"To assist the Board in the task = of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to how they propose to ensure to promote these values.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of participants who = worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want to thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that = were referred to them. Recognizing the Working Group C has recently approved additional principles and that Working Group B's = formal report was provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be providing supplemental recommendations in the near future."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council held a telephone = conference on 19 May 2000 to discuss the <A = HREF=3D"/dnso/wgb-report-15may00.htm">final report of Working Group B</A>. The Names Council adopted the following statement, again by a vote of 16-0 (two members were absent):</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">DNSO Names Council Statement of = 19 May 2000 on Famous Trademarks and the Operation of the = DNS</FONT></U></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The Names Council recognizes the enormous work undertaken by Working Group B. The Names Council acknowledges that according to its final report, Working Group B has reached consensus on three points, namely:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Some type of mechanism, yet to be = determined, is necessary in connection with famous trademarks and the = operation of the Domain Name System.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. There does not appear to be the = need for the creation of a universally famous marks list at this = point in time.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. The protection afforded to = trademark owners should depend upon the type of top-level domains that are added to the root.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"With regards to points (1) and = (3), the NC notes that the Working Group members could not reach = consensus on the type of mechanism that should be incorporated into the roll-out of new gTLDs (point (1)), which is understandable = given their consensus in point (3) that the protection should likely vary depending on the type of top-level domain.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The NC concludes that there is = community consensus and recommends that there should be varying degrees of protection for intellectual property during the startup = phase of new top-level domains. Therefore, the NC recommends that the ICANN Board make clear that nothing in the general consensus items, or areas of non-consensus, should be construed as = creating immunity from the UDRP or other legal proceeding should a = domain name registrant in a chartered top-level domain violate the = charter or other legal enforceable rights. The NC notes that the = principles of differentiated gTLDs (from WG-C) may provide additional = assistance in avoiding confusion.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"With regards to item (2) on = universally famous marks, the NC concludes that there is no consensus in the community at the present time that such a list should be adopted by ICANN.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The NC also recommends to the = ICANN Board that it take note of the Working Group B report, = including the submissions by participating parties.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The NC would like to express its gratitude to the hard work of Michael D. Palage, Kathryn = Kleiman, and Philip Sheppard in steering the Working Group and seeking to guide them towards consensus on the difficult set of issues they were assigned."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"ID"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">D. = <U>Action in Yokohama on New TLDs</U></FONT><FONT = FACE=3D"Arial">.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">At its 16 July 2000 meeting in Yokohama, the ICANN Board will consider the Names Council's 18/19 April 2000 recommendation that the Board adopt "a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner . . . ," as well as the Names Council's 19 May 2000 = recommendations concerning protection for intellectual property during the = startup phase of new top-level domains.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Under Article VI, Section 2(e) of the = ICANN bylaws,</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"the Board shall accept the = recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the = recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best = interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes = (including participation by representatives of other Supporting = Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization. No recommendation of a Supporting = Organization shall be adopted unless the votes in favor of adoption would be sufficient for adoption by the Board without taking account of either the Directors selected by the Supporting Organization or their votes."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The councils of the Address Supporting Organization and the Protocol Supporting Organization have been advised of both statements of the recommendations of the Names Council. The Address Council concluded that there is no address policy issue of concern in connection with the recommendations. The Protocol Council has not expressed any view on the = recommendations.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">To allow additional community comment on the Names Council's recommendations, ICANN has established a web-based Public Comment Forum and will devote a portion of the public forum in Yokohama on 15 July 2000 to the issue.</FONT></P> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following section discusses = principles that might be followed in the adoption of new TLDs, and solicits comments on specific aspects of those principles.<BR> </FONT></P> <H2><A NAME=3D"II"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <U>Suggested = Principles for the Introduction of New TLDs</U></FONT></H2> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The 18/19 April 2000 Names Council = statement recommends that the ICANN Board adopt a policy for the = introduction of new TLDs. In adopting such a policy, several principles should be addressed. The following discusses various possible principles and poses questions for which community input is specifically sought. Those questions, of course, are not meant to be limiting and the public is invited to submit comments on all aspects of policies for the introduction of new TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIA"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">A. = <U>The need to maintain the Internet's stability: a "measured and responsible" introduction</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The U.S. Government's <A = HREF=3D"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm">White= Paper</A> identified four principles that should guide ICANN's activities. Of these, the White Paper made clear that ICANN's primary mission is to preserve the stability of the = Internet:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The introduction of a new = management system [to replace management by the U.S. Government and its contractors] should not disrupt current operations or create competing root systems. During the transition and thereafter, the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS management system. Security and reliability of the DNS are important aspects of stability, and as a new DNS management system is introduced, a comprehensive security strategy should be developed."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Introducing new TLDs implies a change in the overall structure of the DNS, and it is therefore appropriate to take care to introduce any new TLDs in a manner that does not endanger stability.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">To help ensure that introducing new TLDs does not jeopardize the Internet's stability, the Names Council emphasized that the introduction should be done in a = "measured and responsible manner." According to the Names Council, care should be taken to solicit the views of technical standards bodies:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and = standards."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council statement also noted that the implementation of a policy for the introduction of new TLDs should give due regard to practical considerations, such as start-up issues (the "land rush" phenomenon of huge query and transaction loads during the first few hours and days of registration) and the possibility that many domain-name = disputes would be created. In particular, the Names Council = identified:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"(a) promoting orderly = registration of names during the initial phases;</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"(b) minimizing the use of gTLDs = to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; = and</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"(c) recognizing the need for = ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Many have also noted that, as a practical matter, the introduction of new TLDs is not an easily reversible act, since eliminating a TLD (including all domain names = registered within it) once it has been created may create significant = hardships. For these reasons, some have argued that the TLD introductions should begin with a relatively small group, so that if = difficulties arise they are of limited scope and can be effectively addressed before proceeding with additional TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In view of these considerations, public comment is sought on the following issues:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q1:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In the introduction of new = TLDs, what steps should be taken to coordinate with the Internet = Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, and other = organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q2:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What stability concerns are = associated with the initial phases of registration within the = TLD?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q3:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What can be done to = eliminate or reduce these stability concerns?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q4:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would these stability = concerns be magnified by introducing a large number of TLDs at = once?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q5:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any practical = means of reversing the introduction of a significant new TLD once it goes into operation?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q6:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is it feasible to introduce = a TLD on a "trial basis," giving clear notice that the TLD might be discontinued after the trial is = completed?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q7:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To ensure continued = stability, what characteristics should be sought in a proposed TLD and in the organization(s) proposing to sponsor and/or operate = it?</FONT></P> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"IIB"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">B. = <U>A well-controlled, small-scale introduction as a "proof of concept" for possible future = introductions</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Recent experience in the introduction of new TLDs is somewhat limited. No new TLD designated as a = "generic" TLD has been introduced for over ten years, since before = significant commercial use of the Internet began. Although dozens of ccTLDs have been introduced since the onset of commercial use of the Internet in the early 1990s, fewer than 10 of the 245 ccTLDs have as many as 100,000 registrations within them. In view of the limited recent experience, the Names Council's 18/19 April 2000 statement made the following suggestion:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"[W]e recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced = initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level = domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial = introduction."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Thus, the Names Council recommended that the first group of TLDs introduced serve as a "proof of concept." Although the Names Council did not formally = recommend any specific number of new TLDs that should be intorduced in the first group, it did indicate that the first group should be used to evaluate the feasibility and utility of a range of different types of TLDs:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"The Names Council takes note of = the fact that the WG C report indicates that several types of = domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered = top-level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This recommendation suggests that choices about the particular TLDs to be added in the first group, as well as the resulting number of TLDs, should be made in a manner that promotes effective evaluation of :</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">the feasibilty and utility of = different types of new TLDs,</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">the efficacy of different procedures = for launching new TLDs,</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different policies under which the = TLDs can be administered in the longer term,</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different operational models for the = registry and registrar functions, and</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different institutional structures for the formulation of registration and operation policies within the TLD.</FONT> </UL> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Public comment is therefore sought on the following issues:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q8:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To what extent is the = experience gained from introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to = present-day circumstances?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q9:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To the extent it is = applicable, what are the lessons to be learned from that = experience?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q10:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What lessons, if any, can be = learned regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience of the = ccTLD registries?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q11:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Can lessons relevant to = introduction of new TLDs be learned from the recent decisions by a number of them to operate in a globally open manner? If so, what = lessons?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q12:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the Names Council's = recommendation that a "limited number of new top-level domains be = introduced initially" a sensible way to minimize risks to Internet stability?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q13:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What steps should be taken = to evaluate carefully the initial introduction of TLDs before = future introduction of additional TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q14:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should a fixed time be = established for all the evaluations, or should the time allowed vary = depending on the nature of the TLD and other circumstances?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q15:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should choices regarding the = types of TLDs included in the initial introduction seek to promote effective evaluation of:</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">the feasibilty and = utility of different types of new TLDs?</FONT> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">the efficacy of = different procedures for launching new TLDs?</FONT> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different policies = under which the TLDs can be administered in the longer term?</FONT> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different = operational models for the registry and registrar functions?</FONT> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different = institutional structures for the formulation of registration and operation policies within the TLD?</FONT> <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">other = factors?</FONT> </UL> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q16:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should any particular goal = for, or limit on, the number of TLDs to be included in the initial introduction be established in advance, or alternatively should the number included in the initial introduction be guided by the extent to which proposals establish sound proofs of concept of varied new TLD attributes?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIC"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">C. = <U>The purposes for adding new TLDs</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In seems appropriate that the selection of the types of TLDs to be introduced initially reflect an = assessment of the purposes for adding new TLDs. In discussions generally within the Internet community over the past several years, as well as in more recent discussions in the DNSO, various = advantages of new TLDs have been cited. These advantages can be grouped in three broad categories: enhancement of competition in the provision of registration services, enhancement of the utility of the DNS, and enhancement of the available number of domain names.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"IIC1"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. <U>Enhancing = competition for registration services</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One of the main motivations for the = change in policy reflected in the White Paper was a "widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in domain name registration." At the time of the White Paper, registrations in the open gTLDs (.com, .net, and .org) were made by a single source (Network Solutions) at a price fixed by its cooperative agreement with the U. S. Government. Although registrations were also available through over 200 ccTLDs worldwide, the = overwhelming majority of those ccTLDs were restricted to registrants that were affiliated with the countries involved and the relatively few "open" ccTLDs were not extensively used.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Since the establishment of ICANN in = November 1998, the competitive conditions have changed significantly. Beginning in June 1999, competition was introduced at the = registrar level for registration services and now 45 different accredited registrars receive equivalent access to the central registry for .com, .net, and .org. Competition at the registrar level is robust, resulting in prices significantly lower than a year ago and a much larger array of service offerings from which = consumers may choose. In addition to this dramatic growth in competition in .com, .net, and .org, competition from the ccTLDs has also increased. Many formerly "closed" ccTLDs have begun to permit registrations by companies not affiliated with their countries; "open" ccTLDs have become more accepted within registrants worldwide.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The encouragement of competition in = registration services continues to be a major goal of the Internet community. In its 18/19 April 2000 statement, the Names Council stressed that "[i]mplementation [of new TLDs] should promote = competition in the domain-name registration business at the registry and registrar levels."</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although competition has increased = markedly in the past year at the registrar level, <B>the registry</B> (the authoritative database that maps names within the TLD to IP addresses) for all three "open" gTLDs is still = operated by a single company, Network Solutions. This situation limits the effectiveness of overall competition and, even aside from strictly competitive issues, gives rise to concerns over the Internet community's lack of vendor diversity. Some have argued these concerns (competition and vendor diversity) make it = appropriate to introduce one or more alternative, fully open, globally = available TLDs. Others have argued that these concerns are no longer so pressing as to justify adding new open TLDs. As discussed in detail in point 2 below, they assert that having additional, undifferentiated TLDs would tend to reduce the utility of the DNS by increasing inter-TLD confusion. (E.g., <example.com> would be confused with <example.firm>.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One concern sometimes raised in this = connection is that .com may have become so highly preferred in the market to any other TLD that effective competion among open TLDs is no longer likely. Those raising this concern sometimes point out that .com enjoys a vastly superior market share compared to .net and .org, with .com accounting for 80% of the total = registrations in .com, .net, and .org. This predominance of .com registrations continues even though all three TLDs are offered by 45 registrars fiercely trying to sell registrations.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q17:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In view of the current = competitive conditions, should the promotion of effective competition in the provision of registration services continue to be a = significant motivation for adding fully open TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q18:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the desire for = diverse vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important = motivation in adding fully open TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q19:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the introduction of = additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among Internet users?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q20:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Taking all the relevant = factors into account, should one or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q21:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How many?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q22:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How effective would other = fully open TLDs be in providing effective competition to = .com?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q23:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What can be done to maximize = the prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive to = consumers as alternatives to .com?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q24:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the likelihood of = effective competition with .com be enhanced by making one or more of the single-character .com domains (which are currently registered to the IANA) available for use as the basis of a third-level registry (i.e. a registry that took registration of names in the form of <example.e.com> or <example.1.com>)? Should the single-character .com domains be made available for possible registry usage in conjunction with the initial group of additional TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIC2"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. <U>Enhancing = the utility of the DNS</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Another motivation frequently cited for introducing new TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility of the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of adding new TLDs should be evaluated based on whether addition of the new TLDs:</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">would make it easier for Internet = users to find the web sites and other Internet resources they are = seeking and</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">would make it easier for the providers of Internet resources to be found.</FONT> </UL> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This view tends to favor adding = special-purpose TLDs and to disfavor adding undifferentiated, open TLDs. To help keep TLDs distinct and meaningful, it has been suggested that TLDs should be given "charters" which define the = purposes for which they are intended. These charters are intended to = promote the distinctiveness of TLDs over time. Advocates of chartered TLDs note that all the present gTLDs (including .com, .net, and .org) have defined uses, see <A = HREF=3D"http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">RFC 1591</A>. The definitions of the uses of .com, .net, and .org, however, have not been enforced since 1996, when it was decided to suspend screening of registrations to reduce delays in = processing applications for registration.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The view that enhancement of the utility of the DNS should be a chief goal in introducing new TLDs is reflected by the first three principles outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental report:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be = perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"2. Enforcement: An application = for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement = where relevant and desired.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs = should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the = string."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A few have suggested that these = principles (which were approved in WG-C by a vote of 46 yes, 21 no, 1 = abstain) preclude the introduction of any new fully open TLDs. These = people argue that introducing new unrestricted-use TLDs would not = increase the availability of distinctive domain names, but would instead decrease the meaning of domain names generally by encouraging registration of domain names that are distinguished only by = unmeaningful TLD labels. While the principles of WG-C's 17 April 2000 = supplemental report point strongly toward introducing limited-purpose, = distinct TLDs, most of those favoring them urge that they be applied = flexibly so as not to rule out the introduction of one or more fully open, undifferentiated TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Differentiated types of TLDs that have been proposed for introduction under a chartered-TLD approach include:</FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">restricted-use commercial TLDs, such = as .travel (for the travel industry), .movie (for web sites = dedicated to particular films), and .banc (for financial = institutions).</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs defined by some geographic = region, but not qualifying as ccTLDs under current policies.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a TLD restricted to adult uses (.xxx = or .sex).</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs designated for use by particular types of non-commercial organizations, such as .museum and = .union. An existing example of this type of TLD is .edu.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs for use by various affinity = groups.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs intended for advocacy uses, such as .protest.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a TLD devoted to domains registered by individuals for their personal use.</FONT> </UL> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Some have suggested that differentiated TLDs should be introduced in various systematic ways (e.g., by following a predefined taxonomy). Others have favored introducing each specific TLD according to a proposal by an organization interested in sponsoring the TLD that demonstrates the desire, legitimacy, and resources to introduce and manage the TLD in an appropriate manner.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In view of these considerations, public comment is sought on the following issues:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q25:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is increasing the utility of = the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the = introduction of new TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q26:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the introduction of = unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q27:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If so, are there ways of = accommodating the goal of enhancing registry-level competition with the goal of enhancing the utility of the DNS?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q28:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the concept of TLD = "charters" helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the = DNS?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q29:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are the first three = principles outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental report (quoted above) appropriate = criteria for selecting TLDs to be introduced in the first = group?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q30:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Do those principles preclude = the introduction of any new fully open TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q31:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What types of TLDs should be = included in the first group of additional TLDs to best test the concept of chartered TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q32:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should chartered TLDs be = introduced according to a pre-defined system, or should proposals be = evaluated on an individualized basis?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q33:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If charter proposals are = evaluated on an individualized basis, should any steps should be taken to promote stable and orderly evolution of the DNS = overall?</FONT></P> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIC3"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. <U>Enhancing = the number of available domain = names</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A third reason cited for introducing = additional TLDs is that doing so would increase the number of domain names available for registration. This rationale is usually based on the premise that "all the good names are already taken" and that adding TLDs would increase the supply of = "good" names.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In fact, the number of second-level = domain names within a single TLD is quite large (over 10<sup>98</sup>) and claims that any particular TLD is effectively exhausted are, as a technical matter, misplaced. (Even .com has only = approximately 10<sup>8</sup> names registered). Some, however, have noted that the group of useful or desirable names is much smaller than the total theoretically possible. While this observation is correct, even a slight lengthening of possible second-level domain names increases the availabile possibilities much more dramatically than the addition of new TLDs. For example, under the currently followed format rules increasing second-level domain-name length by one character multiplies the possible domain names by 37, while adding three new TLDs similar to .com, .net, and .org would only double them.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Some participants in the discussion have asserted that adding undifferentiated TLDs for the purpose of increasing the number of available domain names runs counter to the goal of enhancing the distinctness of DNS names. In this view, adding names that differ from existing ones only because they fall into new, undifferentiated TLDs would impair the = utility of the DNS. These participants argue that expansion of the DNS name space should not be accomplished by making available = additional names that are likely to be confused with existing names, = particularly since distinctive TLDs could instead be created.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q34:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Has the inventory of useful = and available domain names reached an unacceptably low = level?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q35:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Assuming it is important to = increase the inventory of available domain names, should that be done by adding TLDs that are not differentiated from the present = ones?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IID"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">D. = <U>Delegation of policy-formulation requirements for special-purpose = TLDs</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">As envisioned by the White Paper, ICANN is responsible for overall coordination of the DNS. In view of the hierarchical nature of the DNS, however, the responsibility for establishment of policies within TLDs varies depending on the nature of the TLD. Policies for fully open TLDs (such as .com, .net, and .org) are formulated through the ICANN process, which involves participation of all segments of the global = Internet community. Policies for other TLDs (such as .edu and the ccTLDs), on the other hand, have been formulated by focused = constituencies.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Proponents of limited-purpose TLDs have advocated a "sponsorship" paradigm, in which = policy-formulation responsibility for the TLD would be delegated to an organization that allows participation of the affected segments of the = relevant communities. The sponsoring organization would have authority to make decisions regarding policies applicable to the TLD, = provided they are within the scope of the TLD's charter and comport with requirements concerning interoperability, availability of = registration data, and the like intended to ensure that the interests of the overall Internet are served. For example, the TLD .museum might be sponsored by an association of museums and the .union TLD might be sponsored by a group of labor unions. In many respects, the sponsorship paradigm is a generalization of the concepts underlying appointment of managers for ccTLDs under existing ccTLD delegation policy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">According to proponents, the sponsorship paradigm has the advantages of allowing detailed policies for limited-purpose TLDs to be established through an easily = manageable process in which those with relevant interests can participate, while allowing the more broadly participatory ICANN process to focus on issues of general interest to the entire Internet = community.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q36:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the formulation of = policies for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring = organizations? In all cases or only in some?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q37:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What measures should be = employed to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is = appropriately representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q38:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In cases where sponsoring = organizations are appointed, what measures should be established to ensure that the interests of the global Internet community are served in the operation of the TLD?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q39:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should global policy = requirements (adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements of = representativeness, interoperability requirements, etc.) be = enforced?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIE"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">E. = <U>New TLDs to meet new types of needs</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The 18/19 April Names Council statement recommended that the initial introduction of new TLDs include a variety of types of TLDs. Such a diversity in the initial = introduction can provide useful data to determine what types of TLDs should be introduced in the future. In addition, introducing diverse types of special-purpose TLDs provides the opportunity to meet short-term needs for TLDs that are not met by the existing = TLDs.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q40:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any types of new = TLDs that should not be included in the initial introduction? If any types should be excluded, why?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><A NAME=3D"IIF"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">F. = <U>Start-up challenges and the protection of intellectual = property</U>.</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The statement adopted by the DNSO Names Council on 18/19 April 2000 urged that, in connection with the implementation of a policy for introducing new TLDs, due regard be given to "promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases." On 15 May 2000, Working Group B issued its final report, which amplified on the concern that the startup phases of new TLDs can pose special risks to intellectual = property and found consensus that some type of mechanism, yet to be = determined, is necessary in connection with famous trademarks and the = operation of the Domain Name System.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In its statement of 19 May 2000, adopted after considering Working Group B's final report, the Names = Council concluded that there is community consensus and recommended that there be varying degrees of protection for intellectual property during the startup phase of new top-level domains.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One method of protecting intellectual = property that has been proposed is to prohibit the registration of famous and well-known trademarks. Indeed, the White Paper suggested that ICANN consider adopting "policies that exclude, either pro-actively or retroactively, certain famous trademarks from being used as domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the designated trademark holder." In its deliberations, Working Group B extensively explored the use of a famous-names list for exclusion and reached consensus that such a list was not = necessary or appropriate at the present time. In its 19 May 2000 statement, the Names Council "conclude[d] that there is no consensus in the community at the present time that such a list should be adopted by ICANN." Thus, it seems clear that measures other than a famous-names list for the protection of intellectual property during the start-up phases of new TLDs must be = considered.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council also concluded that = different types of TLDs warrant different types of protection for = intellectual property. For example, some have reasoned that more protections are appropriate in a commercial TLD than in one designated for non-commercial uses.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Along with its recommendation for varying intellectual-property protections depending on the type of TLD, the Names Council also recommended that, as a minimum, the basic methods for enforcing infringed rights should always apply. In its 19 May 2000 statement, the Names Council recommended that the existing procedures (the UDRP and conventionally available legal proceedings) should apply where a domain name registrant in a chartered TLD violates the charter or other legal = enforceable rights.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Concerns over the effectiveness of the UDRP have prompted some in the DNSO Business Constituency to propose that the policy be evaluated and overhauled before any new TLDs are introduced. For example, as of 13 June 2000 the Business Constituency was considering <A = HREF=3D"http://www.bc.dnso.icann.org/approav5.doc">version 5 of a position paper entitled "A practical approach to new Internet domain names,"</A> which (as one option) = proposed a multi-phase process under which there would be several = prerequisites to the introduction of new TLDs:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"Phase I</FONT></U></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"1. Rapidly evaluate the first 12 months operation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process = (implemented 24 October 1999), and subject to a conclusion that it has been successful in meeting its objectives, proceed to phase = II.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"2. Extend the UDRP wef 1st = October 2000 to evaluate claims for ownership transfer based on the = relevance of a well-known trademark to a charter gTLD. Once implemented proceed to phase II.</FONT></P> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"Phase II</FONT></U></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"Introduce new gTLDs in a gradual but systematic way as outlined above, testing each proposed = gTLD against the principles."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Based on the likely implementation = schedule (see below), it is the assessment of the ICANN staff that such a phased approach would result in a delay in the introduction of new TLDs of nine months or more.<BR> </FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q41:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the start up of a new = TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights that = warrant additional protections?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q42:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the protections = afforded intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type of TLD?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q43:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the availability of the = UDRP and court proceedings as remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights an appropriate element of protection of = intellectual-property rights that should apply to all new TLDs? Are there any other protections that should be made available in all new TLDs, = regardless of their type?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q44:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the start up of a new = TLD pose difficulties for those other than intellectual property owners that should be addressed through special = procedures?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q45:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What mechanisms for start up = of a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons receive a fair chance to obtain registrations?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q46:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is exclusion of names = appearing on a globally famous trademark list a workable method of = protecting such marks from infringement at the present time? Would an = exclusion mechanism be approprate in the future?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q47:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should introduction of new = TLDs await completion of an evaluation of the operation of the UDRP and be subject to a finding that the UDRP has been successful in meeting its objectives? How long would such an evaluation likely take to complete?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q48:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should introduction of new = TLDs await extension of the UDRP to cover claims for transfer of = domain names based on the relevance of a well-known trademark to a = chartered gTLD? How long would implementing such a revision to the UDRP likely take?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <H2><A NAME=3D"III"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <U>Suggested = Schedule for the Introduction of New TLDs</U></FONT></H2> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following is a draft schedule for the initial introduction of new TLDs:</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">13 June 2000 - Initial Postings and Drafts:</FONT></B></P> <UL> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Background.</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Principles for the = Introduction of New TLDs</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Schedule for the = Introduction of New TLDs</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Data Elements to Be Sought = from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs</FONT> <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Call for Statements of Interest in = Proposing a New TLD</FONT> </UL> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In conjunction with these postings, a = web-based public comment forum is established to receive comments on the introduction of new TLDs.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">15 July 2000 - ICANN Public Forum, = Yokohama</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A portion of the Yokohama agenda will be devoted to policies and timelines for the introduction of new TLDs. The public forum is an opportunity for public comment and dialogue, either in person or through the webcast's online remote participation tools.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">16 July 2000 - ICANN Board meeting, Yokohama</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The ICANN Board will consider the Names Council's 18/19 April 2000 recommendation that the Board adopt "a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner . . . ," as well as the Names = Council's 19 May 2000 recommendations concerning protection for = intellectual property during the startup phase of new top-level = domains.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 August 2000 - Call for = Proposals</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN will issue a formal call for = proposals, accompanied by a New TLD Registry Application Form, instructions for filling out the application, and a statement of criteria for the Board’s eventual decision.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">It is proposed that the New TLD Registry Application Form include the elements shown in <A = HREF=3D"#IV">Part IV below</A>. Because ICANN will seek heterogeneity and diversity in applicants' TLD models, none of the data elements should be read to restrict or preclude a particular TLD proposal. Comments about these proposed application elements should be posted in the public comment forum.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 October 2000 - Deadline for = Proposals</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">All proposals received by the 1 October deadline will be made public on the ICANN website as to the data elements in <A HREF=3D"#IV-I">I</A> and <A = HREF=3D"#IV-III">III</A> described in <A HREF=3D"#IV">Part VI below</A>. Proposals will be posted when received, rather than waiting until 1 October to post. Comments on the proposals will be solicited through the public comment forum that will be created for that purpose. No additional proposals will be accepted after this = date.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">8 October 2000 - Deadline for Public Comments on Proposals</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This deadline will ensure that at least 1 week is available for public comments on all proposals; to the extent that proposals are received prior to 1 October, the comment period will be longer for those proposals.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 November 2000 - Announcement of = Decision</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN will announce the decision as to the first group of new TLDs to be added to the DNS = root.</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 December 2000 - Completion of = Registry Contracts</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Deadline for ICANN and the selected = registry applicants to sign and publish the new registry = contracts.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In connection with the foregoing = suggested schedule, public comment on the following topics is especially solicited:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q49:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the schedule allow = sufficient time for formulation of proposals?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q50:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the schedule allow = sufficient time for public comment?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q51:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should all proposals be = posted for comment simultaneously to maintain equal time for public comment? Should all proposals be posted for public comment as they are received to allow the greatest possible time for = public analysis and comment?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q52:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the formal = applications be posted in full for public comment? If not, which parts of the applications should remain private?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <P><CENTER> </CENTER></P> <H2><A NAME=3D"IV"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">IV. <U>Suggested Data Elements to Be Sought from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs</U></FONT></H2> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following is a general proposal for the data elements that should be requested of those proposing to operate or sponsor new TLDs. The actual application would likely require more detail as to these elements:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"IV-I"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. Information = about the Proposed TLD</FONT></B></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Proposed TLD label (i.e., the = string of letters identifying the TLD, such as .com, .net, .org, = etc.)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q53:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should proposals choose a = single proposed TLD or numerous possibilities?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q54:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN select the TLD = labels, should they be proposed by the applicants for new TLD = registries, or should they be chosen by a consultative process between the applicants and ICANN?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q55:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should there be minimum or = maximum length requirements for TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate to avoid possible future conflicts with ISO 3166-1 = codes?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q56:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should there be restrictions = on the types of TLD labels that are established (for example, a prohibition of country names)?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q57:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What should be the criteria = for selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English = language TLD labels be favored?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Type of TLD, such as but not = limited to:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Unrestricted (e.g., = .com)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Unrestricted with definition or = semantic meaning, but no enforcement (e.g., .org)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Restricted to a particular class = of registrants or particular uses ("sponsored" or = "chartered", e.g., .edu)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q58:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How many new TLDs of each = type should be included in the initial introduction?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q59:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which types of TLDs will = best serve the DNS?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q60:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any types of TLDs = that ICANN should not consider?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q61:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which types, if any, are = essential to the successful testing period?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. In the case of a restricted TLD, = the mechanisms proposed to make the restrictions = effective</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. Requirements for domain name = registrants in the Proposed TLD</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">E. Purpose, mission, justification = for the TLD</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. What (if anything) will = distinguish the proposed TLD from existing or other proposed = TLDs?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. What market will be served or = targeted?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. How would introduction of the = TLD enhance the utility of the DNS?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. For unrestricted TLDs: What will = be the value to the broader Internet community? Will the TLD = seek to provide competition with existing TLD = registries?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. For restricted TLDs: What will = be the value to the specific community or market to be = served?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">F. Why should the proposed TLD be = included in the initial introduction of TLDs?</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. What concepts are likely to be = proven/disproven by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. By what criteria should the = success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Are there any reasons, other = than the desire to evaluate the introduction process, for including = the TLD in the initial introduction?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q62:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which other structural = factors, if any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential = success of a specific TLD proposal?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">G. Naming conventions within the TLD = (i.e. will registrants register second-level domain names, or will the TLD be organized into = sub-domains?)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"IV-II"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. = Information about the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the = TLD</FONT></B></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Company/organization = information</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Company or organization = name</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Address</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Business = locations/offices</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Names of officers, directors, = and executives</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Annual report or similar = document</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Current business = operations</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">7. Past business operations and = experiences</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">8. Qualifications and experience of = financial and business officers</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">9. Qualifications and experience of = technical officers</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q63:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN accept = proposals from companies formed/forming for the purpose of operating or sponsoring a new TLD? If so, how should ICANN determine the = competence of the company?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q64:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If a company has significant = operational or policy positions not yet filled, how should ICANN evaluate the level of competence of officers and employees?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q65:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should ICANN evaluate = the competence of officers and employees?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Registry business model</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Capitalization of = registry</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Sources of capital</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Revenue model (i.e. for-profit = or cost-recovery?)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Business plan</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Allocation of registry/registrar = functions</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. How will registration services = be provided to registrants (i.e. through a single registrar, selected = registrars, all ICANN-accredited registrars, or some other = model)?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Relationship of registry to = ICANN-accredited registrars</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Proposed registration = fees</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q66:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How much capital should be = required? Should it be a fixed amount or should it vary with the type of proposal and the sufficiency of the business plan? How should the sufficiency of capital be evaluated?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q67:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN seek diversity = in business models as well as TLD types? Which, if any, business models are essential to a successful evaluation = phase?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q68:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What measures should be in = place to protect registrants from the possibility of a registry = operator's business failure?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. Technical capabilities</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Physical plant</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Hardware</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Software</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">c. Facility = security</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Data security and = escrow</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Scalability and load = capacity</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Registry-to-registrar technical = and other support</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Registrar-to-registrant = technical and other support</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Billing and collection = operations</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q69:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What should be the minimum = technical requirements to ensure sufficient stability and = interoperability?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><A NAME=3D"IV-III"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. = Information about the Policies and Procedures Applicable to the = TLD</FONT></B></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Unrestricted TLDs</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Basic TLD policies (how do they = differ from the policies applicable to .com, .net, and = .org)?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Policies for selection of, and = competition among, registrars</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Measures for protection of = intellectual property rights</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Procedures for start-up phase of = TLD</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Dispute-resolution = procedures</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q70:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should ICANN evaluate = the sufficiency of proposed intellectual property = protections?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q71:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What role should ICANN have = in the start-up procedures for new unrestricted = TLDs?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Sponsored/chartered/restricted = TLDs</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Basic TLD policies</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Criteria for = registration</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Enforcement procedures and = mechanisms</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Appeal process from denial of = registration</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Policies for selection of, and = competition among, registrars</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Measures for protection of = intellectual property rights</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Procedures for start-up phase of = TLD</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Dispute-resolution = procedures</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Intellectual-property = disputes</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Charter = issues</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q72:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In what ways should the = application requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ = from those for open TLDs?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. Allocation of policymaking = responsibilities</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Is a sponsoring organization = proposed to receive policymaking responsibility for the TLD? Or will = policies all be made through the ICANN process?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. If some policies are to made by = the sponsoring organization, on what subjects?</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Relationship of registry = operator to policymaking body (i.e. which organization decides which = policies?)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Policymaking procedures (i.e. = how would future changes in registration or registrar policies be = made?)</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Openness, transparency, and = representativeness of policymaking process</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Selection of policy = makers</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Types of stakeholders = represented in the policy-formulation process</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public = comment</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q73:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN require a = statement of policy or should a statement of how policies will be made be sufficient?</FONT></P> <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" = FACE=3D"Arial">Q74:</FONT></B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What level of openness, = transparency, and representativeness in policymaking should ICANN = require?</FONT></P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" = CELLPADDING=3D"0" HEIGHT=3D"35"> <TR> <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc"> <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A = HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of = New TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD> </TR> </TABLE><BR> </CENTER></P> <H2><A NAME=3D"V"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">V. <U>Call for = Statements of Interest in Proposing a New TLD</U></FONT></H2> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In its 18/19 April 2000 statement = concerning new TLDs, the Names Council stated:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"To assist the Board in the task = of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry."</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In accordance with that recommendation, the ICANN staff invites expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate and/or sponsor any new TLD registry. = Expressions of interest should be brief (generally no more than ten pages) but descriptive. All submissions should include = self-identification, brief description of the structure and purpose of the proposed TLD, and an indication of the likelihood of submitting a formal application for the proposed TLD.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although those who submit expressions of interest will neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged in the formal application process, as suggested by the Names Council statement the expressions will be used to assist the formulation of appropriate policies concerning the consideration of formal applications.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Please send expressions of interest in electronic form to tld-interest@icann.org. All submissions should be suitable for public posting. <BR> </FONT></P> <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT><FONT = SIZE=3D"-1" FACE=3D"Arial">Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site <BR> should be sent to <A = HREF=3D"mailto:webmaster@icann.org">webmaster@icann.org</A>.</FONT></CEN= TER></P> <P><CENTER><FONT SIZE=3D"-1" FACE=3D"Arial">Page Updated = 17-June-00 <BR> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"-2" FACE=3D"Arial">(c) 2000 The = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.</FONT><FONT = FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"-2" FACE=3D"Arial">All rights = reserved.</FONT></CENTER> </TD> </TR> </TABLE></CENTER> </BODY> </HTML> --Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)-- --Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA)--
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: Re: UNESCO/ ICSU CONFERENCE 'ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING IN SCIENCE'
- Next by Date: [Fwd: EUSIDIC Conference in Lissabon]
- Prev by thread: [Fwd: TLD]
- Next by thread: [Fwd: Fwd: Semantic Web Workshop: Preliminary CFP (Deadline: July 3)]
- Index(es):