Question: Do you think ICANN should grant new dot names requests (.news,.sex,.bank,etc...) ? Does ICANN need to create clear rules to be in position to arbitrate from a completely impartial standpoint ?

Nominee Replies

Winfried Schueller - posted on 2000-09-18 06:53:57 To the first question: Yes, I think that ICANN should grant new TLDs. It is a good approach to start with a few new ones, check if the introduction causes any problems (technical, business, legal, user acceptance are some issues here) and then proceed with the introduction of more domain names. One of the main criteria for success should be, if the new TLDs help make the Internet a place which is easily usable to anybody, in the spirit of “make the Internet a place where everybody is in and nobody is out”. To your second question: I wish that ICANN had made clear-cut rules for the introduction of new domain names. They tried for the last two years very hard to reach consensus. Unfortunately it turned out that it is very hard to find the smallest common denominator. Therefore, even after long and hard work, the results are somewhat disappointing. The procedure we have at the moment, a sort of beauty contest for new TLDs, with very loose criteria on the decision making process, we could have had long time ago. Still I think the discussions among all the different interest groups were fruitful, because at least they showed that there is little agreement in the community on the new TLDs. For the future, it is in evrybody’s interest to create in a first step at least some statements which can be used as a checkpoint for successful introduction of new TLDs. Possibly there should be a way that private people or at least interest groups have the chance to propose TLDs without a huge financial risk. The process in the last two years showed that there is no impartial standpoint, but there are some positions which have at least a broader consensus than others. Maria Cattaui - posted on 2000-09-15 09:48:35 This question leads to one of ICANN’s most challenging issues: clear procedure. Rather than deciding the outcome of this debate, let’s agree on the process to reach an outcome. I propose that we reinforce the positive aspects of how previous ICANN Board decisions were reached. ICANN must not run away from the responsibility it has to uphold decision-making mechanisms that work. Having been for years in the field of international negotiation, I know there are always people who won’t like results that an executive body reaches. But if you can agree on how to get those results, than the battle is nearly won. Substance wise, it is ICANN’s job to worry about the issue of charter TLDs. But in and of themselves, the clear rules ICANN defines to do this will determine the end answer. Olivier Muron - posted on 2000-09-15 07:15:36 I am in favor of the creation, in a controlled manner (6 to 10), of new TLD's based on a diversity of business models and of operators. I am not sure to understand what rules you are talking about. Andy Mueller-Maguhn - posted on 2000-09-14 14:15:00 I do support new TLD´s, but wish to combine it with more attention to the culture problems of those. What ICANN can not do is to create clear rules in unclear areas, like the trademark area, which is non-unique on the planet. So, i would prefer to combine new TLD´s with their own policies and different UDRP´s on the issues. A lot of squatting problems could be solved be creating a TLD like .sucks. Also, the different trademark laws in geographical areas could be relaxed by having Second Level Domains like .tm. in the different countries. Just expanding TLD´s for the money would be a bad idea, causing more problems than it solves on the long-term road. Jeanette Hofmann - posted on 2000-09-12 12:19:21 1. Yes. 2. I am afraid there are no completely impartial positions. The Net's name space has been subject to distributional conflicts for several years now. While private users (and providers) clearly benefit from an expansion of the name space, trademark holders fear to lose control over what they regard as their exclusive rights to names and marks. Those rights are defined by national laws, which are bound to territories. It is still an open question to which extent national laws can be imposed on the Net. The UDRP is a first, albeit controversial attempt to define some common ground. It won't be the last. Alf Hansen - posted on 2000-09-11 07:42:09 New TLDs should be established when the criteria for such establishemsnts are ready. Quote: The policy calls for submission of proposals to sponsor or operate new TLDs by interested persons and organizations. After public comment, these proposals will be evaluated and a limited number of proposals will be selected for negotiations toward agreements between ICANN and the TLD sponsors and operators. The current goal is to complete negotiations by 31 December 2000.. I think this is a good procedure. In this way new TLDs will eventually be created if the criteria after negotiations are found to be acceptable. Right now I cannot say yes or no to any spesific proposal. To your second question, if I understand it right: To develop such clear rules there must be consensus in the SOs and the At-Large about these rules. In short term I think such consensus will be difficult to achieve. To develop consensus, I think rukes by negotiations is a good thing.