Consensus:New TLDs

YES Meter
15 at 86.7% YES

Please click here to indicate your current status. You'll need to log in first.

Status	Name	ICANN Affiliation	Comment

YES	Wendy Seltzer	ALAC member

YES	Jacqueline A. Morris	ALAC member (LAC)

YES	Dirk Krischenowski	GNSO Business Constituency

YES	Brandon CS Sanders	ICANNwiki

YES	Chris McElroy aka NameCritic	GA List

YES	Jaeyoun Kim	CCNSO

YES	Raymond King	AboutUs

YES	Gerry Gleason

YES	Michael Maranda	AFCN

YES	Jean-Christophe Vignes	EuroDNS and ISOC - French Chapter	The YES refers to the modified version: I believe we should concentrate on the future TLDs and start in abstraction first (no need to change ICANN policy just yet)

YES	Frederick Schiwek	EuroDNS

YES	Katrin Ohlmer	dotBERLIN

YES	Samuel Huang	DN1

Not Yet	Danny Younger	GA List and NCUC

Not Yet	Emiliano Pasqualetti	User

What does all this mean?

Instructions

Framing the Issue is stage 1 of 3.

Put YES if this statement correctly frames the "New TLDs Issue" as you see it.
Put Not Yet if it's not done yet. Then revise it so that it works for you.
Change your status as often as you like!

The yes refers only to "What should ICANN policy with respect to new TLDs be?" and that works for me. The other sections will be part of the second and third stages. Right now we are just trying to build momentum via reaching a "stepping stone" consensus of at least 10 ICANN people.

Framing the Issue

What should the policy on the introduction of new TLDs be?

edit this section
discuss this section

Please note that the current YES Meter applies only to the statement in the "Framing" section above and will never refer to the sections below! These sections will be approved in stages 2 and 3.

Instructions

Concerns and Interests, and Background Information together are Stage 2 of 3.

You may begin to work on these sections now.
The YES meter will appear here once Stage 1 (above) has completed.

Concerns and Interests

Please make sure that your interests are adequately represented by the terms and their definitions. You may not share all of the interests that are listed here, but it is important that we share a language to discuss the tradeoffs for potential solution pieces. For example, "Solution piece A does a great job at transparency, but it does a terrible job at low overhead because it requires that so many forms be filled out."

This section is in a divergent "cover the entire space" phase right now. As more and more concerns and interests are dumped into this section they will begin to coalesce into clusters of related concerns. Eventually (in the next several days) each cluster will receive an evocative name and an appropriate definition that draws from the concerns that it symbolizes.

For the Public Benefit

All of the other interests and concerns are aspects of the public benefit.

Freedom of Expression

added choices for internet users
#Competitive Marketplace

Trustworthy

Avoid confusing similarity of names (visually, phonetically, conceptually)
Hard to phish and commit fraud
#Stability, #Reliable, #Secure, #Permanent

Low Overhead

Delegate and facilitate
Don't act as central planner
Don't act as regulator
Avoid litigious subjective judgements

Agility

Low Overhead
Flexibility to react quickly to changes in the marketplace

Orderliness

new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

Timeliness

new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

Predictability

new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

Stability

stability and security of the domain name system

Security

stability and security of the domain name system

Privacy

no access by third parties to personally identifiable information.

Fairness

#Openness
#Consistency
equitable treatment of registries, proportional to the obligations imposed by ICANN with respect to the payment of fees to the organization

Consistency

Openness

Stimulating Innovation

predictable process
greater investor certainty
longer term investment views
stable business environments
certainty for market players
promote investors’ confidence and give incentives for long-term investment
regulatory certainty and predictability
clearly establishing what is the discretion offered to the licensing body
certainty for market players

consistency

openness

consistency

equitable treatment of registries, proportional to the obligations imposed by ICANN with respect to the payment of fees to the organization

no presumptive renewal

greater investor certainty

innovation

creativity

longer term investment views

stable business environments

predictability of registry operation

competition at the registrar level

compliance with ICANN Consensus Policies

reliance by ICANN on the appropriate competition authorities for advice on, for example, market pricing and market power issues

no access by third parties to personally identifiable information.

accountability

certainty for market players

flexibility of the regulatory process to accommodate the rapidly changing market, technological and policy conditions

promote investors’ confidence and give incentives for long-term investment

regulatory certainty and predictability

fair, transparent and participatory

graduated sanctions for nonperforming registries

clearly establishing what is the discretion offered to the licensing body

ensuring sufficient lead-times and transitional arrangements in the event of non-renewal or changes in licensing conditions

transparency

scalable process

predictable process

process transparency

consistent with industry best practice standards for services procurement

certainty for market players

flexibility of ICANN to accommodate the rapidly changing market, technological and policy conditions

agreement should be of commercially reasonable length

renewal expectancy

external competition and anti-trust authorities to ensure compliance with applicable competition law in particular, laws relating to market power or pricing power

clear sanctions process outlined within the base contract to terminate a contract if the new gTLD operator has been found in repeated non-performance of the contract

consistency amongst gTLD agreements

consistent approach with respect to registry fees, taking into account differences in regional, economic and business models

protection of personal data

fair

practical

robust selection criteria

pre-published application process

widely advertised prior commencing

encourage applications from geographic areas or communities who had previously not had the opportunity to participate in ICANN’s TLD opportunities

practical solutions for resolving contention between applicants with similar ideas about new TLDs

resolve contention between competing applications vying for the same string

widespread notification of new top-level domain applications to resolve string contention

resolve contention between existing registry operators or trademark owners with applicants proposing a string similar to either an existing registry or to an existing trademark

compliance with ICANN’s Consensus Policies

freedom of opinion and expression

freedom to hold opinions without interference

freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

avoid deceiving the public for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin

only such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society

“confusingly similar” is used to mean that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public

Words or images which are offensive, such as swear words or racially derogatory images, or which are blasphemous are not acceptable.

avoid visual confusion

avoid phonetic confusion

avoid conceptual confusion

avoid subjective interpretations that are open to legal challenge

faster applications

less costly applications

timely and precise routine communication

objective

contribute to the stability and security of the Internet

consistent with existing international law

openness

transparency

consistency with previous new TLD application rounds

selection criteria that reflected industry best practice for services procurement

consistent with ICANN’s limited technical co-ordination mission

recover the costs of the application process

extra costs that might result from the differences in the applicant’s working language as well as legal systems should not be held against the applicant

different fees may be levied depending on what stage in the process the application reaches

in line with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values

probity rules

clear timelines for applicants

published prior to the beginning of any application cycle

application fee should not be a barrier to entry

education for interested stakeholders on new top-level domains

reduce avoidable indirect costs for the applicant

shorter approval process with fixed timelines

standardized contracts and public pre-evaluation hearings

compliance with a minimum set of technical standards such as IETF Request for Comments related to the operation of the DNS and other technical standards. Standards may include RFC3730-3735, RFC2246, RFC1035, RFC2181, RFC2182, and the ICANN Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names.

avoid visually or [phonetically] confusingly similar TLDs to an existing TLD string

not infringe the legal rights of any third party

string should not cause any technical issues that have an impact on the stability and security of the Internet

string should not be contrary to public policy

string should not be contrary to accepted principles of morality

string should not be of such a nature as to deceive the public

dispute resolution process, using independent arbitrators

ICANN accredited registrars to provide registration services

Consensus on selection criteria

financial and business plan demonstrating that the applicant has the capability to meets its business ambitions.

Consensus on allocation methods

Consensus on implementation processes

Additional new generic top-level domains should be introduced and work should proceed to enable the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking into account the recommendations found in the following sections.

facilitate competition

public benefit of TLDs with different purposes

added choices for internet users

expansion of internet usage through the market development efforts of new and existing providers of registry services

opportunity to test user demand for specific TLDs

opportunity to develop a resource that best serves the needs of a particular community

risky to freeze the namespace

need more competition

current operators are in limited geographic regions

good for innovation and additional participation from regions that have yet to be involved so far

nead clear criteria

immediately show value and provide obvious competition

support public interest

clear differentiation

need good criteria

TLD should be differentiated from other existing TLDs

certainty with respect to the selection requirements for registrants associated for TLD - e.g only museums in .museum

community behind domain name

enforcement of contractual commitments

competition and diversity

no reason not to

consistent with a market approach

prioritisation of IDNs

protection for registrants in the case of business failure of the TLD operator

better to manage the introduction of new TLDs rather than have a growth of alternative roots

competitive environment for registry services

“public choice” benefit for end users

the potential for expansion of innovative Internet use in a wide variety of markets that have may have been underserved in the past

evaluate technical

evaluate business

evaluate legal

evaluate process

new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) should be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way.

orderly

timely

predictable

some new generic top-level domains will be internationalised domain names (IDNs).

internationalised domain names

the principal objectives of the introduction of new top-level domains are to permit market mechanisms to support useful online identities that permeate international markets as well as to support competition, innovation and consumer choice.

useful online identities

competition

innovation

consumer choice

That a set of technical criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.

minimum technical criteria

operational stability

operational security

operational interoperability

That a set of business capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant be used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to meets its business ambitions.

protection of consumer interests

minimize consumer's risks by making sure that new gTLDs won't fail and leave them high and dry

Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.

timely decisions

time-bound decisions

global and multi-cultural considerations are taken into account

detailed comparative evaluations

a robust application and decision process

not be contrary to public policy

not be contrary to accepted principles of morality

not of such a nature as to deceive the public

predictable decisions

low barriers to entry

stable decisions

diversity

self expression

enhance the ability of users to identify themselves and the content they create on the Internet

natural communities to express their common interests under a common moniker

benefit the public interest

enhance competition

free choice to use a TLD what they think serves their communication-interests

appropriate protection for trademarks and other asserted rights should be decided on a case-by-case basis

default accept new TLDs, only deny if it clearly does harm

non-discrimination, that if a given category of new TLDs is approved, then applicants that meet the same conditions (as well as technical/financial reliability conditions etc.) have a right to approval as well

affordability of application for developing countries and other "good causes"

enable widely varying scales for TLDs

openness

transparency

fairness

independent review

bottom up rather than top down

Restrictions to the use of generic TLDs harm the creativity and freedom of expression by the users

dewey decimal ... organized like an index with universally agreed meanings

a generic TLD one must not any longer gain the right to choose its users (as it already happened with .travel and others)

Communication is a matter of public interest and generic TLDs, as platforms for worldwide communication, must be open to everyone.

The continuation of this policy of restricted TLDs would cause unsolvable conflicts: What, if the first sponsor for a new TLD “.god” belongs to some fundamentalist branch of a religious group and wants only members of this group give the right to use it? “God” belongs to everyone, even to atheists, “food” is important to every human being and cannot be restricted to eg. food companies, love not to marriage brokers...

The introduction of new TLDs should serve public interest not particular interests

generic TLDs are not restricted to a certain group of domain name applicants (eg. arbitrarily chosen by the sponsor of the TLD)

evaluate based on merits, against objective criteria

Rather than accept applications at set times, the application process should be a standing part of ICANN’s work

free to submit applications whenever they believe they have completed an application that meets ICANN’s published, objective criteria

accept and evaluate applications

ICANN shouldn't designate new TLDs (why, what are the underlying interests behind this?) from the ALAC stuff

diversity

local relevance

choice in vocabulary is a good thing

end users want localization

speculative shakedowns are undesirable because they squander end user value

speculative squatting is undesirable because it squanders end user value

ignoring a difficult policy question is a policy in and of itself

different categories of TLDs need different kinds of requirements (e.g., gTLDs are different from GeoTLDs)

even within a particular category of TLD there may be subcategories that have different requirements

localization is good

clear meaning ... evocative meaning ... many people want a second level domain in a TLD with a particular meaning

subjective choices are difficult

avoid inflaming particular communities

lawsuits against ICANN are bad for ICANN

stable, secure, open, and easily and universally accessible.

TLDs related to geoTLDs should be granted only if the applicant is an appropriate representative organisation of the community

accuracy

robustness

resilience

In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly delegated to another designated manager.

That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names, delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with technical competence.

The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the DNS service for the domain.

ability to carry out the necessary responsibilities

The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names.

the same rules are applied to all requests

all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion

academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis.

equitable

just

honest

competent

well-functioning

stable

secure

ICANN not "in the way"

low overall cost

low overhead

increased investment

increased innovation

increased competition

increased user satisfaction

minimize confusion between gTLDs

adequate protections for rights-holders

broad protections for rights-holders

simplicity of administering

minimal procedural barriers to entry

minimize end user confusion

minimize social costs

minimize economic costs

minimize opportunity costs

support delegations that substantially and demonstrably benefit the public interest in cases where the delegants wouldn't normally be able to afford the application fees

uncertainty is bad

permanence

repeatability

technically and operationally competent operators

permanence

predictability

repeatability

uniform minimum requirements

Any restrictions on the specific strings that may be allocated must be limited, and publicly documented.

Restrictions should not attempt to manage semantics or structure taxonomy.

preserving the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet while depending on market mechanisms to promote competition

limited interference

limited regulation

minimal centralization

distribution of regulation

openness

transparency

competition

fairness

standard treatment

explicitness in advance of the process ... don't like implicit criteria

clearly and completely defined

shared frame of reference

rationality

policies and processes used to launch and operate gTLDs normalized to the point that it becomes an unremarkable event

discourage undesirable behavior

don't unreasonably constrain innovation

protect and serve the interests of the Internet community, registry and registrar operators, governments, business interests and, most importantly, users.

ICANN as delegator and facilitator

ICANN not acting as central planner

ICANN not acting as regulator

stability and security of the domain name system

solid foundation

fact

shared understanding

staying out of the business model and business process of a gTLD delegant

monopoly bad, competition good (for everyone except perhaps the monopoly)

good service from registries

good wholesale and retail prices

security and stability have never been an issue ... everyone has that covered because it's a foundation piece ... everybody has the foundation built

objective criteria for security, if a delegant doesn't maintain the expected levels then they get yanked

stable internet

reliable internet

secure internet

globally interoperable Internet

creativity

innovation

flow of information

limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination

To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties

Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making.

Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.

Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.

Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process.

Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness.

Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected.

Remaining accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness.

While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.

edit this section
discuss this section

Background Information

This section will contain a comprehensive background of relevant and fact-checked information. To help us get started, please add existing documents to the sources subsection.

Documents that still need their concerns and interests extracted: