NCC DNSO elections - Question 4
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 17:29:00 -0400
From: James Love <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: YJ Park <yjpark@myEpark.com>
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Jonathan Cohen <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re:  NCC Q&A Session with Candidates for DNSO Board
YJ Park wrote:
> The introduction of new gTLD has been discussed for long and
> it is about to be implemented soon by ICANN in the middle of
> criticisms, suspicions, welcomes, recommendations and so forth.
> There are also TAG-questions which looms us whenever new
> gTLD is on the table.
> First, could you expound your position on new gTLDs in conjunction
> with some controversial issues even in NCC?
> "Alternative Root Server Test-Bed"
> "The Introduction of Mulitilingual Internet Names"
> "How to Realize Geographical distribution of registries"
I'm not sure if I understand what you are refering to, since there
have been some questions raised regarding definitions of things like
alternative roots. As you know, I have objected to the language in the
new TLD solicitation that says that new TLDS cannot be used for
alternative roots, and I have asked that ICANN provide some definition
of what this means. I still haven't received a response from ICANN on
In general, if ICANN is too overbearing in terms of regulating the
Internet, and if ICANN restricts the expansion of the root, for
anticompetitive reasons, there will be pressures for alternative roots,
or perhaps alternatives to ICANN altogether. ICANN should focus on
doing a good job, and not letting its power go to its head.
I think it is important to create multilingual internet names, and
it is also important to support the notion of open and non monopolistic
standards for the Internet. I was pleased that I-DNS and NSI said they
would embrace IETF open standards. I look forward to hearing from
those who actually know something about this issue explaining things a
bit more. I think the suggestion that there could be more than one
root system, and that the systems could be interoperable, is
interesting, because it could avoid the case of an ICANN monopoly or an
ICANN seeking too much power or a bureaucracy with too little
innovation. But this isn't an area that I am an expert on, and I am
trying to learn a bit more.
I don't see anything wrong with some initial quotas on new TLDs by
region, language or something similar if people really want this, so
long as the result is that we move forward, and permit the creation of
lots of new TLDs.
> Secondly, you are expected to decide which new gTLD proposal
> should win over the bid after being a Board.
> If you are a DNSO Board member, what would be your criteria
> to select some proposals out of tons of almost equally well-
> articulated and technology-competetive-offering ones
I would push for the creation of large numbers TLDs, so that the
criteria would not be very difficult. The "proof of concept" idea seems
silly to me, when you already have 244 ccTLDs doing all sorts of
different things. The more interesting issue would be how do you
address the issues of hoarding TLDs or the "land rush," as well as the
various consumer protection issues. However, if the test bed was very
small, I would ask that at least half be for non-commercial TLDs, and
other than that, the ICANN staff proposal that each new TLD do something
new isn't a bad thing to look at, if you are in an R&D mode.
One issue here concerns the $50k non-refundable fee. The testbed
will also be a testbed for the new legal framework. It should not cost
$50k to have a voice in what that legal framework should be. Nor should
ICANN use the TLD application process as a fundraiser.
James Love mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 126.96.36.19976