[lug] Pointers to recent developments in the DNS/ICANN world

[Neal McBurnett]

Wondering about when those new Top Level Domains are coming
out?  Domain name dispute resolution confusion?

For those who like to follow this stuff, here are some
pointers....

Neal McBurnett <nealmcb at bell-labs.com>  303-538-4852 Denver
Bell Labs / Lucent Technologies
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/      (with PGP key)


ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers:
   http://www.icann.org/
ICANN diagram:
   http://www.wia.org/icann/after_icann-gac.htm

UDRP: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
  http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

Foomkin's response to UDRP (concerned about the process and
advantages for the big boys):
	http://personal.law.miami.edu/~amf/icann-udp.htm


Position Papers for creating new Top Level Domains (gTLDs)
like .biz, .family:
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html

My quick summary notes on the positions:
A: cautious, more icann control
  both general- and limited-purpose TLDs
  either testbed (decision already made?) but also supportive of free flow
    (presumption of going forward)
  presumption of competitive shared registrars
  non-profit or for-profit
B: go fast, avoid danger of stopping at 6-10 new gtlds, free market
  Avoiding "testbed" phase seems very important to avoid slowly
  growing oligarchy.
  Also argues for advantages of registrar-registry integration, proprietary
  front-end software, etc.
C: go very slow - protect trademark holders
  don't loosen standards for contact information...?
D: specific to stability - need for multiple new gTLDs, not for
 competitive reasons per se, but instead to support the multiple
 registries needed for stability [who would also be able to take over
	if NSI went down, etc.]
  argues against proprietary TLDs
 ICANN control over "sponsored" or "chartered" TLDs via RFP
E: "chartered" tld & registry for ".NAA": Indigenous Nations of North America
F: go very slow, no property rights in gTLD itself
G: treat like SLDs: root system with free entry for new gTLDs - more
  like B?

My opinion:
   The most compelling is language in "B" about avoiding a "testbed"
   mentality.  ICANN should make a *commitment* that there will be
   hundreds of new gTLDs as soon as is practible.  The world must have
   confidence that it isn't going to stop with the first few new gTLDs
   or else the whole move to gTLDs will lose much of its purpose.

Forget "C" for the reasons clearly outlined in B and A.
E is great.
D is fine in terms of "stability".

Overall I tend to prefer B over A.

Send your comments to:    comments-gtlds at dnso.org