In general, the policies to be followed in the TLD will contain themes previously used and familiar within the Shared Registry System (SRS). This proposal diverges from the current system in concrete and innovative ways, as it minimizes data storage requirements on registrars, centralizes the data at the registry, and provides greater continuity in the WhoIs lookup capability. Though end users will notice very little change from a user perspective, structural and systems changes behind the scenes create simpler and more consistent practices in domain name registration, maintenance and storage. Though registrars have the option of continuing to collect maximum data, the DotKids, Inc. registry enables them to streamline their systems if they so choose.
Collecting and storing the maximum datum from registrars results in a “fat” or “thick” registry system. Data is centrally stored at the registry level, rather than maintaining the current “thin” NSI Registry model where only five datum are required to be passed from the registrar to the NSI Registry (see Registrar Accreditation Agreement II.E.1(a-e). A thick registry model generates competition among registrars, since registrars devote resources away from data storage to marketing and providing value-added services.
While registrars must continue to backup their databases, the requirement for registrars to escrow data becomes optional because the registry is responsible for the data and therefore performs the data escrow function. Daily incremental backups and escrow responsibility for all data and policies are mandated at the registry. Registrars can increasingly focus on providing consumers products and value-added services, one of which will be domain name registration. With some of the financial, policy and data burdens reduced for registrars seeking entry into the market, the new model encourages entrepreneurship in the market.
The “fat” or “thick” registry model also minimizes the risk to the end user (the SLD holder). The domain information is now stored in the registry database, so should the registrar the SLD holder is operating with goes out of business, then the SLD holder domain information is secured with the Registry, where they can transfer the domain to another operational registrar.
These significant reductions in barriers for entry into the market increase competition, simplify requirements for registrars, create uniformity in how data is stored and escrowed, and protect the data elements collected from SLD holders. Broader distribution channels stimulate competition and raise profits within the industry, particularly at the .kids registrar level, due to a reduction of significant barriers to entry into the market. Moreover, WhoIs look up problems that abound under the current registry model will be improved through the use of a central registry database that is synchronized daily to serve as a central reference and authority on domain name registrations.
Please provide a full and detailed description of all policies to be followed in the TLD (other than those covered in response to items E11-E21). If the TLD's policy on a particular topic is proposed to be identical to that reflected by a particular version of any of the following documents, it is sufficient for your response to identify the topic, to give a brief summary of the policy, and for the details to reference the document and section:
·
ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
·
NSI Registrar License and Agreement
·
ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement
·
Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
Your response should comprehensively describe policies on all topics to be followed in connection with the proposed TLD. The following items (E2-E10) are examples only and should not limit your description.
DotKids, Inc. uses the RAA as a tool for recognizing ICANN approved and operational registrars, and registrars in good standing and under active accreditation are positioned to initiate domain name registration with DotKids, Inc. registry. A Certified Registrar Agreement for .kids (CRA) will be awarded to prospective registrars seeking certification to register domain names in the .kids TLD. It is proposed that the CRA be provided to ICANN by DotKids, Inc. following successful completion of the registrar’s operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) phases. The CRA is then appended to the RAA, and ICANN relies on the certification provided by DotKids, Inc. registry to accredit registrars in the new TLD.
The CRA combines elements of the existing RAA and NSI Registrar License and Agreement (RLA), both of which are widely accepted in both policy and practice. For example, RAA II.J.7 Business Dealings, Including with SLD Holders remains useful and appropriate for inclusion in the CRA, just as the RLA provides appropriate requirements in 2.8 for Secure Connection and in 2.14 for Surety Instrument. Both documents provide for resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The CRA differs from the RAA in the following key sections:
·
II.F.1, II.F.2, II.G – fewer requirements for the
registrar
F.1 – since the .kids Registry model is a “fat” or “thick” model, registrars do
not need to provide their own whois service.
The .kids Registry whois will be providing the same information about
the domain SLD holder as the registrars.
F.2 – by having the SLD holder information stored at the .kids Registry,
registrars need only submit this information to the Registry. The .kids Registry whois in turn will be
updated with the new data and make it available to the public.
G.2 – optional, although recommended, since the .kids Registry is storing the
information.
· II.F.6 – deleted. This will be an optional requirement instead of a must requirement, since registrars will not be obligated to generate their own whois database.
· II.F.5, II.I. – these may be modified, taking into consideration the .kids “fat” or “thick” Registry model since the data is now also available at the .kids Registry.
· II.H – applies only to “thick” registrars
These changes are necessary to align policies and practices consistent with operation of a “thick” registry. The RAA for .kids will simply indicate which paragraphs apply to a particular registrar, depending on whether the registrar chooses to collect and retain all the data currently identified to be held for .com, .net. and .org, or retain only the minimum required when operating under a “thick” registry model.
A matrix identifying the specific sections of the current RAA and sections requiring modification in the CRA are found at Attachment IX-a.
DotKids, Inc. will implement an RLA for .kids, including but not limited to: the obligations of the parties, description of services provided, fees and credits, terms of service, data submission requirements, use of data, dispute resolution, support services, a service level agreement (SLA), and Confidentiality Agreement. Acceptable standards are established in key areas. The SLA provides metrics and remedies to measure performance of the DotKids, Inc. registry and provide accredited registrars with credits for certain substandard performance by the registry. Benchmarks for guaranteed uptime, notification schedules to be followed for planned outages, and methods for determining compensation for failure on the part of DotKids, Inc. to meet its service level agreements. No registrar will enjoy preferential treatment by the registry in terms of technical accessibility to the registry system.
DotKids, Inc. will enter into an ICANN-Registry Agreement similar to the current ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement. Included in this document would be a schedule of fees to be paid to ICANN.
The UDRP is widely accepted within the Internet community for resolving domain name disputes. This UDRP will apply to the .kids TLD as well, with a slight but important revision noted below. The revision is necessary to correct problems caused by language used in the original UDRP text. Specifically:
· Section 4(i) of the UDRP includes as a remedy the option of the Administrative Panel deciding that a domain name registration be cancelled (deleted). Remedies must be limited to a finding either for the Complainant or Respondent. To cancel a domain name registration reintroduces the domain name back to the market at large, which would allow for the re-registration of the domain name by someone other than the injured party. This does not make sense. A parallel change in language needs to be made in the Rules for UDRP, section 3(xiii). Finding for either the Complainant or Respondent results in protecting the domain name and data associated with the registration of that data. The UDRP needs to be modified to remove the option of canceling a domain registration.
Please identify the TLD string(s) you are proposing. For format requirements for TLD strings, see the answer to FAQ #5.
Consistent with the protocols established and in use within the Internet for over 25 years, and coded according to the rules of the “ASCII” character set, DokKids, Inc proposes the TLD “.kids”.
Describe the naming conventions and structure within the TLD. E.g., will registrants have names registered at the second level (directly under the TLD, as in registered-name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub-domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered-name.travel.com)?
The naming convention and structure within the TLD will allow registrants to register at the second level (e.g., as in registered-name.com).
Describe in detail the policies for selection of, and competition among, registrars. Will domain-name holders deal through registrars, directly with the registry operator, or some combination of the two? What are the respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the registry operator and registrars? If registrars are to be employed, how and by whom will they be selected or accredited? If the number of registrars will be restricted, what number of registrars will be selected? Have the qualifying registrars already been selected? On what basis will selections among those seeking to be registrars be made, and who will make them? If registrars are to be used, what mechanisms will be used to ensure that TLD policies are implemented?
Registrars who are accredited and operational under ICANN’s RAA and who successfully complete .kids Registry OT&E phases will be issued a Certified Registrar Agreement through ICANN with verification of testing provided to ICANN by DotKids, Inc.. Current operational registrars qualify for inclusion in the initial round of .kids Registry deployment. We do recommend that for the initial testing, i.e. the testbed phase, only a selection of registrars are allowed to register in the .kids Registry. The selection of these registrars can be performed by ICANN and DotKids, Inc. along with the agreement of the registrars. Criterion for assessment will include sound and proven technical capabilities, agreement to DotKids, Inc. operational practices, procedures and policies concerning the registration of the TLD, and a demonstrated ability to meet financial requirements as determined by DotKids, Inc.. Prospective registrars will agree to periodic audits of their systems and business practices related to operationalizing the TLD. Domain name holders continue to deal through the registrars and not directly with the registry. The registry-registrar model is business-to-business (B2B); the registrar to registrant (or domain name holder) model is business-to-consumer (B2C). As described in Volume II Summary and E1, the .kids TLD registry is “thick” while registrars have the option of running thin or thick registrar systems. DotKids, Inc. registrars submit all data elements required under the RAA (see RAA sections II.E, II.F, II.G) with the exception of the billing contact (II.G.1). Additional registration data elements may be required with a .kids domain, such as a website rating associated with the domain name. Registrars are required to keep a minimum of RAA data requirements in their databases (see RAA II.E.1(a)(g)) but can opt to store all data presently required for .com, .net., org. In addition, registrars must keep generally needed customer account information stored in their databases. As stated, registrars can opt to store data currently required under the RAA, but there is no requirement to store such data given the DotKids, Inc. “fat” or “thick” registry model.
Describe the policies for protection of intellectual property. Your response should address at least the following questions, as appropriate to the TLD:
E5.1. What measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights?
E5.2. If you are proposing pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations, how will the pre-screening be performed?
E5.3. What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?
E5.4. What measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation?
E5.5. Are you proposing any special protections (other than during the start-up period) for famous trademarks?
E5.6. How will complete, up-to-date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?
The protection of intellectual property rights has been hotly debated among the registrar and intellectual property constituencies of ICANN. No single, mutually agreed upon solution has been accepted by all parties. However, DotKids, Inc. believes that a common theme running through the conversations is that all would agree that the protection of data and securing it with the rightful party, is paramount. To this end, DotKids, Inc. is interested and willing to work with parties to develop a workable solution to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights. DotKids, Inc.’s software development team and technical expertise offers strong capabilities to develop and incorporate developments in the IP area. DotKids, Inc. will diligently and aggressively publicize through direct media that it is coming on line, and will announce to the internet community its partnership with the IP community to protect intellectual property rights. DotKids, Inc. will rely on documentation verifying trademark registration and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to assess domain name registrations challenged on the grounds of intellectual property rights infringement. DotKids, Inc. will also be researching methods in order to either screen new domain name registrations against an international intellectual property database or ways of notifying IP owners when a newly registered domain name may be violating their intellectual property.
Registration Agreement
Sunrise Periods
Pricing
Submission of Trademark Datum
Daily Public Posting to Website of Registered Names
Registrar Lock
Opportunity to Challenge Registrations
Rights of Registrar to Delete or Transfer Domain Names
Registration Agreement—The ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement II.J.7 requires registrars to enter into agreements with SLD holders detailing the obligations of both the registrar and the SLD holder. Registrars accredited to register .kids must modify certain language and incorporate new language into their registration agreements in order to comply with DotKids, Inc. registry requirements. Language must address the contractual obligation of the SLD holder to agree that by submitting trademark datum (discussed below), the SLD holder verifies the authenticity of the trademark.
Sunrise Periods—To enable the registry to meet the demands anticipated during the initial roll-out period, DotKids, Inc. will provide for a Sunrise Period of 60 days to accept globally-recognized trademarks to provide these corporations an opportunity to period.
Pricing—While DotKids, Inc. pledges its willingness to work with the Intellectual Property (IP) constituency to address trademark violations associated with domain name registrations, DotKids, Inc. recognizes and acknowledges that, to date, no “master list” or filtering system has been uniformly agreed upon in either the Registrar Constituency or the IP Constituency. Pricing domain name registration within the reach of trademark giants like Coca-Cola and out of the reach of would-be cybersquatters is an effective and realistic barrier to unscrupulous individuals seeking to register multiple domain names for profit. Currently, disputes over domain names are addressed through the UDRP or the courts. Fees and time involved with filing and processing such claims easily reach into thousands of dollars. During the Sunrise Period, the IP community is given a mechanism to be assisted by registrars and the registry on a first-come, first-serve basis. This, along with premium pricing, is the DotKids, Inc. preferred choice for providing protection for intellectual property rights.
Submission of Trademark Datum—The .kids Registry will require registrars to implement software to accept three data elements for all trademarks:
· Country where the trademark is registered
· Registration number of trademark
· Date of registration of trademark
Neither the .kids Registry nor the registrar will require documentation to be submitted in hard copy at the point of domain name registration. As mentioned, Registration Agreements between registrars and SLD holders will incorporate new language to contractually bind the SLD holder, who will agree that by submitting the three datum, the SLD holder verifies the authenticity of the trademark. The trademark datum is considered valid and reliable unless otherwise challenged and disproved.
Daily Public Posting to Website of Registered Names—.kids Registry will post to the public on its website all domain names registered daily during the total 60-day Sunrise Period. Challenges to registered domain names will be addressed during and 60 days following the Sunrise Period.
Registrar Lock—All domains registered during the Sunrise Period will be placed on registrar lock for 60 days from the date of registration. The practice of not allowing transfers of domain names registered under 60 days is current practice and provides ample time for those people who feel their rights have been violated to take appropriate action.
Opportunity to Challenge Registration—To address challenges to domain name registrations, DotKids, Inc. will work in concert with representatives of the IP community as well as with registrars to ensure swift resolution of alleged trademark violations during the initial roll-out period. Were a domain name challenged based on trademark, the registry would require the registrar of record to collect documentation from the SLD holder proving the trademark information. If the SLD holder fails to produce such documentation in a timely manner, the registrar will have the authority to delete or transfer the domain name. DotKids, Inc. will establish an email address to communicate with members of both the IP and registrars communities.
Rights of Registrars to Delete or Transfer Domain Names—Registrars are required under the RAA II.J.7 to enforce compliance with SLD holders in submitting accurate and reliable information. Failure by the SLD holder to comply with these terms, which are spelled out in the Registration Agreement, is a “basis for cancellation of the SLD registration.” Therefore, and particularly during the Sunrise Period, registrars will be required through the DotKids, Inc. CRA to take swift and immediate action to correct for situations where no reliable documentation can be produced to verify trademark.
Describe the policies for domain name and other dispute resolution. If you are proposing variations to the policies followed in .com, .net, and .org, consider the following questions:
DotKids, Inc. is familiar with the UDRP and the Arbitration Panels that decide these cases. Legal counsel addresses disputes brought in courts of competent jurisdiction and works with the parties through final resolution. No variations are expected to be implemented by DotKids, Inc. with the exception of the revision to the UDRP as stated in E1 to correct for what DotKids, Inc. believes was unintended in the first place.
E6.1. To what extent are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) would be fully implemented while recognizing the needed modifications stated in E1.
E6.2. Please describe any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution procedures you are proposing.
Additional dispute resolution is initiated in courts of competent jurisdiction, and DotKids, Inc. will honor court-ordered decisions in domain name dispute cases. DotKids, Inc. will also work with registrars in their attempts to bring disputes to resolution by working with the parties involved on more informal but documented bases so that disputes may be resolved prior to the initiation of lawsuits or UDRP filings.
Describe the proposed policies on data privacy, escrow and Whois service.
.kids Registry is aware of the privacy issues
that are concerning Internet users.
DotKids, Inc. has no intention of using the information stored in the
.kids Registry regarding the domain name holders for any marketing or spamming
purposes.
The .kids Registry whois database will be generated at least once per day. The following information will be provided when querying a domain name in the .kids Registry whois:
Domain name
Registrar
Registrar Whois
SLD Holder name and address
SLD Holder contact
information (admin and technical)
Nameservers
Update date
We are also reviewing the possibility of
adding a privacy flag in the .kids Registry Whois service where SLD Holders
through their registrars can request not to have their complete or part of
their information published in the whois database. The .kids Registry whois database will be
ICANN is working with existing registrars to finalize a data escrow process to be used by all the registrars. .kids Registry will review the process recommended by ICANN when implementing its own data escrow process.
Describe variations in or additions to the policies for billing and collection.
the .kids Registry system is
based on a prepayment model. Registrars must have a positive balance with
the Registry in order to perform domain registrations. It will be the registrar’s responsibility to
ensure that adequate funds are available for their domain registration needs.
The availability of funds will be handled by the DotKids, Inc. accounting and
legal departments. They will have the
capability of adjusting a registrar’s balance in the .kids Registry database to
allow for the registrar to perform registrations. The .kids Registry software will adjust a registrar balance every
time a domain registration is performed, or when a deletion, renewal or any
other Registry transaction is performed that has a fee attached to it.
DotKids, Inc. is also aware of some of the issues facing existing registrars with the prepayment model. DotKids, Inc. is reviewing the possibility of issuing registrars refunds for their domain name registrations, if the registrars provide proof to DotKids, Inc. that they have made all efforts to collect the fees from the registrant.
E9. Services and Pricing
What registration services do you propose to establish charges for and, for each such service, how much do you propose to charge?
§ SRS Agreement –The .kids Registry will enter into Service Level Agreements with all ICANN Accredited Registrars. The one time fee for this agreement will be $10,000.
§ Domain Name Registrations (B2B & B2C) – As the Registry, DotKids, Inc. will receive $12 per registration. For the initial roll out period, DotKids, Inc. plans are to implement a higher fee structure starting at $48 for the first month, $36 for the second month, $24 for the third month and then will resume the $12 fee structure for the remaining 9 months of that fiscal year. This amount will be reevaluated following the first 12 months of operation. (B2B2C – see the proposed pricing chart for the initial landrush period.)
§ Renewal of Domain Name Registrations – .kids Registry will charge the same annual fee for Renewals as for the initial Registration of $12.
§ Transfers – .kids Registry will transfer Domain Names which will include a one year renewal on that Domain Name for $12.
§ Special Services under consideration include special case refunds to Registrars with the appropriate proof of a refund to the registrant and special reporting being made available at Registrars request.
Please describe any policies concerning topics not covered by the above questions.
No other policies to describe.
Section 2:
Registration Policies During the Start-Up Period (Required for all TLDs)
E11. In this section, you should thoroughly describe all policies
(including implementation details) that you propose to follow during the
start-up phase of registrations in the TLD, to the extent they differ from the
General TLD Policies covered in items E1-E9. The following questions highlight
some of the areas that should be considered for start-up policies:
E12. How do you propose to address the potential rush for
registration at the initial opening of the TLD? How many requested
registrations do you project will be received by the registry operator within
the first day, week, month, and quarter? What period do you believe should be
considered the TLD's "start-up period," during which special
procedures should apply?
E13. Do you propose to place limits on
the number of registrations per registrant? Per registrar? If so, how will
these limits be implemented?
E14. Will pricing mechanisms be used to
dampen a rush for registration at the initial opening of the TLD? If so, please
describe these mechanisms in detail.
Projected registration numbers for the day, week, month and quarter are as follows:
Day 1 – 200 Registrations
Week 1 – 2,000 Registrations
First Month – 10,000 Registrations
First Quarter – 75,000 Registrations
DotKids, Inc. is also attaching a “LandRush” graph demonstrating it’s proposed approach.
(Refer to Land Rush Attachment IX – b)
E16. As noted in the New TLD Application Process Overview, a restricted TLD is one with enforced restrictions on (1) who may apply for a registration within the domain, (2) what uses may be made of those registrations, or (3) both. In this section, please describe in detail the restrictions you propose to apply to the TLD. Your description should should define the criteria to be employed, the manner in which you propose they be enforced, and the consequences of violation of the restrictions. Examples of matters that should be addressed are:
E17. Describe in detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation of the reasoning behind the specific policies chosen.
Not applicable to DotKids, Inc.
E18. Describe the application process for potential registrants in the TLD.
Not applicable to DotKids, Inc.
E19. Describe the enforcement procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the registration requirements.
Not applicable to DotKids, Inc.
E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.
Not applicable to DotKids, Inc.
E21. Describe any procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD registration for failure to comply with restrictions.
Not applicable to DotKids, Inc.
E22. This section is intended to allow you to describe the benefits of the TLD and the reasons why it would benefit the global Internet community or some segment of that community. Issues you might consider addressing include:
E23. What will distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLDs? How will this distinction be beneficial?
E24. What community and/or market will be served or targeted by this TLD? To what extent is that community or market already served by the DNS?
E25. Please describe in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently unmet needs.
E26. How would the introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users? For the community served by the TLD?
E27. How would the proposed TLD enhance competition in domain-name registration services, including competition with existing TLD registries?
Statement of Purpose
Almost from its very inception, the Internet has been marked by a tension between the desire to maintain an unregulated forum, which allows for the unfettered exchange of information, and the need to provide a virtual realm suitable for access by all. While the Internet has opened new possibilities and vistas for global commerce and served as an unparalleled platform allowing individuals access to educational and enlightening materials, it has also been used as a conduit to disseminate controversial, objectionable and even illegal content. For the mature Internet user, such content is simply avoided or disregarded, but for a child using the Internet, limiting exposure to such inappropriate material is often not so easily addressed.
The struggle to allow every child access to the universally valued resources available on the Internet, while limiting, or entirely eliminating, their exposure to unsuitable content has, thus far, been largely unsuccessful. Parents have tried to shepherd their children while using the Internet, but the practical constraints of utilizing such an approach gives it inherent limitations. The United States Congress and the legislative bodies of other countries have passed, or attempted to pass, legislation designed to address some of the concerns, but these efforts have, as of yet, largely failed to provide a viable solution to the problem given the very global nature of the Internet. Commercial and other organizations have attempted to address the issue by making available filtering software designed to limit a child’s access to such inappropriate content by what is effectively a mechanical means. This approach, too, has had but limited success.
Despite admirable motivation and earnest effort by all concerned, such individual, legislative and technical solutions ultimately fall short of solving the underlying problem. A more effective and more viable solution lies in the creation of a new TLD which, in essence, creates a parallel World Wide Web for children. In this TLD, objectionable content would, by definition, be non-existent, as domain registrants within the TLD would contractually bind themselves to appropriate terms of use. This would allow a parent to grant their child access to Web Sites throughout the .kids TLD without the need to monitor physically their child’s activities or to filter content. Where appropriate, the parent could even set user defined parameters to limit further the child’s ability to move within the TLD.
By creating a virtual safe zone for children and teens in the .kids TLD, the Internet becomes essentially self-regulating. The interests of children are protected, not by individual or governmental efforts, but by the nature and structure of the Internet itself. Importantly, all of this is accomplished while still allowing the free flow of information in other TLDs. The needs of all parties are served. Such a solution is in keeping with the original visions for the Internet, while also in keeping with practical and appropriate concerns regarding children.
As well as serving as a practical solution to a significant and existing problem, the addition of a .kids TLD is a logical adjunct to a system that contains TLD for commercial enterprises (.com), organizations (.org) and educational institutions (.edu) as well as others. Such a TLD serves an entire subset of global Internet users - children, thereby addressing the ICANN goal of meeting the needs of an expanding Internet community. There are estimated to be 19,000,000 children using the Internet today and a recent study shows that children ages 8 to 15 have become the largest single group on Internet users. A new .kids TLD would accomplish the goal of allowing children access to content which is universally valued, while eliminating their exposure to content which is universally condemned.
ICANN and working Group C have set forth several criteria which it considers elemental requisites to addition of new TLDs. The creation of a new .kids TLD would meet these stated concerns. The TLD would sensibly fit within the current DNS hierarchy while simultaneously enhancing the diversity of the current DNS. It would meet the previously unmet need of protecting children’s interests while not impeding the flow of content suitable for other Internet users. The TLD is self-defining as it clearly denotes that its use is for, and by, children and it is semantically distinct from other TLDs. The TLD is recognized in a significant part of the globe. The TLD will not only be aggressively promoted, but it will be, to a large degree, self-marketing as its clearly speaks to its targeted content providers and users and it will meet a significant, existing need. The mechanism for charter enforcement will function to protect the TLD’s intended purpose. Initial roll-out of the TLD is structured to protect the interest of trademark holders in acquiring their equivalent domain names and strictures will be in place in order to ensure on a continuing basis that the intellectual property interests of third parties are protected.
Section
5: Value oF Proposal as Proof of
Concept (Required for all TLDs)
E28. Recent experience in the introduction of new TLDs is limited in some respects. The current program of establishing new TLDs is intended to allow evaluation of possible additions and enhancements to the DNS and possible methods of implementing them. Stated differently, the current program is intended to serve as a "proof of concept" for ways in which the DNS might evolve in the longer term. This section of the application is designed to gather information regarding what specific concept(s) could be evaluated if the proposed TLD is introduced, how you propose the evaluation should be done, and what information would be learned that might be instructive in the long-term management of the DNS. Well-considered and articulated responses to this section will be positively viewed in the selection process. Matters you should discuss in this section include:
E29. What concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in the manner you propose?
E30. How do you propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?
E31. In what way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?
E32. Are there any reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this particular TLD should be included in the initial introduction?
The TLD, .kids, would make an excellent
choice to be included in this initial testbed phase. The approach DotKids is presenting could clearly be the pioneer
to sectioning out the world wide web’s content through TLD recognition. The approach of bringing value along with a
TLD string in an open registry environment would serve a strong model for
future roll out of new TLD’s.
One of the proposed solutions is the
incorporation of the domain rating system from accredited International rating
organizations. The method of direct
electronic communication of a domain rating along with the name of the rating
organization, from the organization to the DotKids Registry is a proof of this
concept. Today, to register a domain in
the .edu TLD, documents/certificates have to be supplied to Network Solutions.
In addition, DotKids, would be working with
ICANN to address kids online which is the second largest concern surrounding
the Internet today. ICANN’s
consideration of any “green space” truly needs to be based on a well rounded
approach to cover all of the concerns from censorship, to cultural differences,
to guardian’s choice and still providing minors the grand wealth of resources
to feed and grow healthy young minds.
The e-generation needs to be able to explore the Internet without being
solicited or strategically targeted to fall upon unwanted and inappropriate
sites.
Implementation of software available to ISP’s
which incorporate the “rating options” and filtering capabilities that restrict
the user’s access to .kids sites to guardians and parents, in conjunction with
the implementation through browsers, will be an added feature to this TLD. This software will also incorporate software
that eliminates anonymous e-mail and chat.
By signing this application through its representative, the Applicant attests that the information contained in this Description of TLD Policies, and all referenced supporting documents, are true and accurate to the best of Applicant's knowledge.
_______________________________
Signature
_______________________________
Name (please print)
_______________________________
Title
_______________________________
Name of Applicant Entity
_______________________________
Date