[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: TLD]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit


-- 
Howard Flack        http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html
Laboratoire de Cristallographie               Phone: 41 (22) 702 62 49
24 quai Ernest-Ansermet             mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch
CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland                   Fax: 41 (22) 702 61 08

--Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA)
Content-type: message/rfc822

Return-path: <owner-icsti-l@DTIC.MIL>
Received: from sc2a.unige.ch ([129.194.48.4])
 by sunny.unige.ch (PMDF V6.0-24 #44959)
 with ESMTPS id <0FWT00AMND7BYX@sunny.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch
 (ORCPT howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:54:49 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #44957)
 id <01JR3O0U9RWW003N9E@sc2a.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch
 (ORCPT rfc822;howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue,
 27 Jun 2000 14:54:45 +0200 (MET-DST)
Received: from dtics13.dtic.mil ([131.84.1.18])
 by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #44957)
 with ESMTP id <01JR3O0QJ65K003IJQ@sc2a.unige.ch> for
 howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:54:43 +0200 (MET-DST)
Received: from dtics13 (dtics13.dtic.mil [172.16.105.98])
 by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA04983; Tue,
 27 Jun 2000 08:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DTIC.MIL by DTIC.MIL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d)
 with spool id 1807 for ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:52:20 -0400
Received: from mails.dtic.mil (mails.dtic.mil [131.84.1.19])
 by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA00565 for
 <icsti-l@dtics13.dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (sys723e.dtic.mil [131.84.1.2])
 by mails.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/990419cac) with ESMTP id IAA16564 for
 <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (root@localhost) by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP
 id IAA16327 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dticexch.dtic.mil (dticexch.dtic.mil [131.84.6.66])
 by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP id IAA16323 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Tue,
 27 Jun 2000 08:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by dticexch.dtic.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
 id <NVQ11T31>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:47:04 -0400
From: "Molholm, Kurt" <kmolholm@DTIC.MIL>
Subject: TLD
Sender: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL>
Approved-by: crandall@DTIC.MIL
To: ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL
Reply-to: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL>
Message-id: <AB6780112626D211A6920008C7567CB2037BB449@dticexch.dtic.mil>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)"
Importance: low
X-Priority: 5
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Comments: cc: Directors <Directors@dtic.mil>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Earlier this year Howard Flack raised the issue of the possible expansion
Top Level Domain names and suggested this was a way to make it easier to
find STI. Specifically he suggested " If ICANN goes ahead with new TLDs I
wondered what might be the interest for the scientific community and for the
stm publishing community to push for a TLD like .sci or .stm."

For your information the ICANN ( Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers) Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains was
posted on 13 June 2000 with a deadline for Public Comments of 10 July 2000.
One of the areas they are asking for comments is "Enhancing the utility of
the DNS." The entire issue paper posted for comment asks 72 questions. Eight
questions apply to the issue of enhancing utility. These are examples of the
questions regarding enhancement:

 "Q25: Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an
appropriate goal in the introduction of new TLDs?

Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run
counter to this goal?"

Finally I am sorry that Howard thinks my "...example of Elsevier Science is
a red herring (a very English expression meaning that it is not a real
problem)." My dictionary defines a red herring as something that distracts
attention from the real issue. I said "Aren't most publishers/distributors
of scientific and technical information part of a larger organization, which
would be the more appropriate TLD?  I can't imagine DTIC moving from .mil to
.sci, and I would be very leery of a large commercial publisher hiding
behind a domain name shared by not-for-profit concerns, university presses,
or professional societies(Elsevier.sci??)." This was not criticism of
Elsevier or any commercial entity, it was merely an example of the problem
of what enhancement of the DNS means. What is the reason for enhancement?
What is enhanced? It was not meant to distract attention. My message also
raised the issue of intellectual property concerns. These are also a subject
in the ICANN paper and request for comments.

This is the ICANN take on the possibility of expanding Top Level Domains.
You may find the background and perhaps scanning the rest of the document
useful. This may appear to be a very esoteric subject but just think of the
impact ".com" has already made on society. It's a part of the language ---
and not only the English language.
  <<new-tld-topic.htm>>  http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm

Kurt


--Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)
Content-type: application/octet-stream; name=new-tld-topic.htm
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=new-tld-topic.htm
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<!-- saved from url=3D(0034)http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm -->
<HEAD>
  <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"Adobe PageMill 3.0 Win">
  <TITLE>ICANN | Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level =
Domains</TITLE>
  <META CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff">

<P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"95%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0">
  <TR>
    <TD WIDTH=3D"100%">
      <P><TABLE BORDER=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0">
        <tbody>=20
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"7%">&nbsp;</TD>=20
          <TD WIDTH=3D"25%"><IMG =
SRC=3D"http://www.icann.org/logos/icann-logo.gif"
            WIDTH=3D"188" HEIGHT=3D"145" NATURALSIZEFLAG=3D"0" =
ALIGN=3D"BOTTOM"=20
            ALT=3D"ICANN Logo"></TD>=20
          <TD WIDTH=3D"68%">
            <P><CENTER><FONT SIZE=3D"+3" FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN Yokohama =
Meeting
            Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level =
Domains</FONT></CENTER></P>

            <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Posted: 13 June 2000<BR>
            Deadline for <A HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds">Public Comments</A>: =
10 July
            2000</FONT></CENTER>
          </TD>
        </TR></tbody>=20
      </TABLE></P>

      <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT></CENTER></P>

      <H3><CENTER><U><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">CONTENTS</FONT></U></CENTER></H3>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. <A =
HREF=3D"#I">Background</A></FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. <A HREF=3D"#IA">Present Structure of =
the
        Domain-Name System.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. <A HREF=3D"#IB">History of =
Discussions.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. <A HREF=3D"#IC">Names Council =
Recommendation
        on New TLDs.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. <A HREF=3D"#ID">Action in Yokohama =
on
        New TLDs.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <A HREF=3D"#II">Suggested Principles
      for the Introduction of New TLDs</A></FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. <A HREF=3D"#IIA">The need to =
maintain
        the Internet's stability: a &quot;measured and =
responsible&quot;
        introduction.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. <A HREF=3D"#IIB">A well-controlled, =
small-scale
        introduction as a &quot;proof of concept&quot; for possible =
future
        introductions.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. <A HREF=3D"#IIC">The purposes for =
adding
        new TLDs.</A></FONT></P>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. <A HREF=3D"#IIC1">Enhancing =
competition
          for registration services.</A></FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. <A HREF=3D"#IIC2">Enhancing the =
utility
          of the DNS.</A></FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. <A HREF=3D"#IIC3">Enhancing the =
number
          of available domain names.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. <A HREF=3D"#IID">Delegation of =
policy-formulation
        requirements for special-purpose TLDs.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">E. <A HREF=3D"#IIE">New TLDs to meet =
new
        types of needs.</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">F. <A HREF=3D"#IIF">Start-up challenges =
and
        the protection of intellectual =
property.</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <A HREF=3D"#III">Suggested Schedule
      for the Introduction of New TLDs</A></FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">IV. <A HREF=3D"#IV">Suggested Data =
Elements
      to Be Sought from Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate
      TLDs</A></FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. <A HREF=3D"#IV-I">Information about =
the
        Proposed TLD</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <A HREF=3D"#IV-II">Information =
about
        the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the TLD</A></FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <A HREF=3D"#IV-III">Information =
about
        the Policies and Procedures Applicable to the =
TLD</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">V. <A HREF=3D"#V">Call for Statements of
      Interest in Proposing a New TLD</A></FONT></P>

      <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT></CENTER></P>

      <H2><A NAME=3D"I"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. =
<U>Background</U></FONT></H2>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">For several years, there have been =
proposals
      to introduce new top-level domains (TLDs) into the Internet =
Domain
      Name System (DNS). After a ten-month-long study, on 18 April
      2000 the Names Council of the ICANN Domain Name Supporting =
Organization
      (DNSO) recommended that ICANN adopt a policy under which new
      TLDs would be introduced in a measured and responsible manner.
      The ICANN Board of Directors is expected to consider adopting
      such a policy at its <A HREF=3D"/yokohama/">meeting on 15-16 July
      2000 in Yokohama, Japan</A>.</FONT></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IA"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" =
FACE=3D"Arial">A.</FONT></B><FONT
       SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial"> <B><U>Present Structure of the =
Domain-Name
      System</U>.</B></FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The DNS allows users to locate computers
      on the Internet by a name (e.g., <A HREF=3D"/">www.icann.org</A>)
      rather than a harder-to-remember IP address (e.g., <A =
HREF=3D"http://192.0.34.65/">192.0.34.65</A>).
      The DNS, which was introduced in the mid-1980s, is a distributed
      database containing resource records that allow you to input
      another computer's domain name, which your computer then maps
      to the other computer's IP address.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The DNS has a hierarchical structure, =
with
      each name composed of a series of &quot;labels&quot; separated
      by dots. The rightmost label in a name refers to the name's =
top-level
      domain (such as .org). Each top-level domain can be divided into
      many second-level domains (such as icann.org). Second-level =
domains
      can be divided into third-level domains (such as www.icann.org
      and members.icann.org), and so on.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The selection of TLDs within the DNS is
      defined by the root-zone file, the contents of which are made
      available to users on the Internet through the authoritative
      root server system. Under the White Paper, the responsibilities
      being transferred to ICANN include oversight of operation of
      that system.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">For technical reasons, it is convenient
      to delegate the operation of each top-level domain to a single
      organization. Currently, the DNS employs top-level domains =
consisting
      of three types:</FONT></P>

      <UL>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The current three-letter codes are =
referred
        to as &quot;generic TLDs.&quot; Presently these codes are .com,
        .net, .org, .edu, .int, .mil, and .gov. Descriptions of the =
intended
        purposes of these TLDs are set forth in <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">RFC
        1591</A>, which was issued in March 1994. No new TLDs in this
        category have been added since the late 1980s.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Two-letter codes (such as .de, .jp, =
and
        .uk) are used to represent the names of countries and =
territories
        and are referred to as &quot;country-code top-level =
domains,&quot;
        or simply &quot;ccTLDs.&quot; The policies governing the =
establishment,
        delegation, and operation of ccTLDs are discussed in <A =
HREF=3D"/icp/icp-1.htm">ICP-1</A>.
        Under these policies, ccTLDs are established only for =
two-letter
        codes appearing on the <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/codlstp1.html">ISO
        3166-1 list</A>. A few of these ccTLDs were established in the
        1980s, but most were created in the mid- and late-1990s.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">There is one other top-level domain, =
.arpa,
        that has recently been designated to be used for =
Internet-infrastructure
        purposes. This top-level domain is <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.iab.org/iab/statement-on-infrastructure-domains.txt">=
managed
        by the IANA</A> in cooperation with the Internet technical =
community
        under the guidance of the Internet Architecture Board.</FONT>
      </UL>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Within the DNS database, all of the TLDs
      operate in a similar manner. They are distinguished mainly by
      their intended use, by which organization operates them, and
      by who is permitted to register names within them.</FONT></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IB"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">B. =
<U>History
      of Discussions</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although many new ccTLDs were established
      as new countries and territories joined the Internet, no other
      new TLDs have been established since the late 1980s. During the
      1990s, various proposals were made to implement additional =
generic
      TLDs in the DNS. These proposals have ranged from adding a few
      gTLDs to several hundred. Different types of TLDs have been =
discussed,
      ranging from TLDs open to registrations by any person or =
organization
      for any use (&quot;unrestricted TLDs&quot;) to TLDs intended
      for registrations by particular types of persons or organizations
      or for particular uses (&quot;restricted&quot; or =
&quot;chartered&quot;
      TLDs).</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The US Government's June 1998 <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm">White=

      Paper</A>, which proposed transitioning the Government's =
responsibilities
      for technical coordination of the Internet to a private-sector
      not-for-profit corporation (now ICANN), noted that the =
private-sector
      coordinating corporation should ultimately have the authority
      necessary to oversee policy for determining the circumstances
      under which new TLDs are added to the root system. The White
      Paper noted, however, that:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;At least in the short run, a =
prudent
        concern for the stability of the system suggests that expansion
        of gTLDs proceed at a deliberate and controlled pace to allow
        for evaluation of the impact of the new gTLDs and well-reasoned
        evolution of the domain space. New top level domains could be
        created to enhance competition and to enable the new =
corporation
        to evaluate the functioning, in the new environment, of the =
root
        server system and the software systems that enable shared =
registration.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">On 30 April 1999, the World Intellectual
      Property Organization, which at the request of the US Government
      had conducted a study of intellectual-property issues in =
connection
      with the DNS and the various proposals for its evolution, =
submitted
      a report to the ICANN Board of Directors. That report <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo-report-5.htm#343">concluded</A>
      that new gTLDs could be introduced, provided that various =
measures
      were adopted to protect intellectual-property rights and that
      the new TLDs were introduced in a slow and controlled manner
      that takes into account the efficacy of the proposed measures
      in reducing existing problems. Among the intellectual-property
      protections was a proposed mechanism for protecting globally
      famous names in any new generic TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">At its meeting in Berlin on 27 May 1999,
      the ICANN Board <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm#99.48">referred=
</A>
      the issues of TLD expansion and globally famous trademarks to
      the newly formed ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization =
(DNSO).</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">On 25 June 1999, the DNSO Names Council
      (which manages the process for development of policy recommendatio=
ns
      within the DNSO) <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCmeet.html">created</A>=

      a group, known as <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html">Working
      Group C</A>, to study the issues raised by the introduction of
      new gTLDs. The Names Council also created another group, known
      as Working Group B, to study issues concerning the protection
      of famous trademarks in the context of any newly introduced =
generic
      TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IC"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">C. =
<U>Names
      Council Recommendation on New TLDs</U></FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Working Group C submitted <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgc-report-21mar00.htm">its
      report</A> to the DNSO Names Council on 21 March 2000 and <A
      HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/new-gtlds-01apr00.htm">posted
      the report for public comment</A>. Public comments were solicited
      and received through the icann.org web-based comment forum and
      via e-mail to the dnso.org site. Working Group C provided a <A
      =
HREF=3D"http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgc-supp-report-17apr00.htm">supplemen=
tal
      report</A> on 17 April 2000.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council discussed these reports
      and comments at a <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000418.NCtelecon-minutes.html">=
telephone
      conference</A> held on 18/19 April 2000. At that meeting, the
      Names Council adopted the following statement of its =
recommendations,
      by a vote of 16-0 (two members were absent):</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">DNSO Names Council Statement of =
18/19
        April 2000 on New gTLDs</FONT></U></B></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The Names Council determines that
        the report of Working Group C and related comments indicate =
that
        there exists a consensus for the introduction of new gTLDs in
        a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore
        recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for
        the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible =
manner,
        giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a)
        promoting orderly registration of names during the initial =
phases;
        (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of
        intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for
        ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new
        TLD and the DNS as a whole.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;Because there is no recent =
experience
        in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a =
limited
        number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and =
that
        the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done
        only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The
        Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report =
indicates
        that several types of domains should be considered in the =
initial
        introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, =
restricted
        and chartered top-level domains with limited scope, =
non-commercial
        domains and personal domains. Implementation should promote =
competition
        in the domain-name registration business at the registry and
        registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any =
roll-out
        must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes
        a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes
        ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations
        dealing with Internet protocols and standards.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;To assist the Board in the task =
of
        introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the
        ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking
        to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to how
        they propose to ensure to promote these values.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;We would like to extend our deep
        appreciation to the substantial number of participants who =
worked
        so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want to thank them
        for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that =
were
        referred to them. Recognizing the Working Group C has recently
        approved additional principles and that Working Group B's =
formal
        report was provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that
        we will be providing supplemental recommendations in the near
        future.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council held a telephone =
conference
      on 19 May 2000 to discuss the <A =
HREF=3D"/dnso/wgb-report-15may00.htm">final
      report of Working Group B</A>. The Names Council adopted the
      following statement, again by a vote of 16-0 (two members were
      absent):</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">DNSO Names Council Statement of =
19
        May 2000 on Famous Trademarks and the Operation of the =
DNS</FONT></U></B></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The Names Council recognizes the
        enormous work undertaken by Working Group B. The Names Council
        acknowledges that according to its final report, Working Group
        B has reached consensus on three points, namely:</FONT></P>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Some type of mechanism, yet to be =
determined,
          is necessary in connection with famous trademarks and the =
operation
          of the Domain Name System.</FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. There does not appear to be the =
need
          for the creation of a universally famous marks list at this =
point
          in time.</FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. The protection afforded to =
trademark
          owners should depend upon the type of top-level domains that
          are added to the root.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;With regards to points (1) and =
(3),
        the NC notes that the Working Group members could not reach =
consensus
        on the type of mechanism that should be incorporated into the
        roll-out of new gTLDs (point (1)), which is understandable =
given
        their consensus in point (3) that the protection should likely
        vary depending on the type of top-level domain.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The NC concludes that there is =
community
        consensus and recommends that there should be varying degrees
        of protection for intellectual property during the startup =
phase
        of new top-level domains. Therefore, the NC recommends that the
        ICANN Board make clear that nothing in the general consensus
        items, or areas of non-consensus, should be construed as =
creating
        immunity from the UDRP or other legal proceeding should a =
domain
        name registrant in a chartered top-level domain violate the =
charter
        or other legal enforceable rights. The NC notes that the =
principles
        of differentiated gTLDs (from WG-C) may provide additional =
assistance
        in avoiding confusion.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;With regards to item (2) on =
universally
        famous marks, the NC concludes that there is no consensus in
        the community at the present time that such a list should be
        adopted by ICANN.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The NC also recommends to the =
ICANN
        Board that it take note of the Working Group B report, =
including
        the submissions by participating parties.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The NC would like to express its
        gratitude to the hard work of Michael D. Palage, Kathryn =
Kleiman,
        and Philip Sheppard in steering the Working Group and seeking
        to guide them towards consensus on the difficult set of issues
        they were assigned.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><A NAME=3D"ID"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">D. =
<U>Action
      in Yokohama on New TLDs</U></FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">At its 16 July 2000 meeting in Yokohama,
      the ICANN Board will consider the Names Council's 18/19 April
      2000 recommendation that the Board adopt &quot;a policy for the
      introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner
      . . . ,&quot; as well as the Names Council's 19 May 2000 =
recommendations
      concerning protection for intellectual property during the =
startup
      phase of new top-level domains.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Under Article VI, Section 2(e) of the =
ICANN
      bylaws,</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;the Board shall accept the =
recommendations
        of a Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the =
recommended
        policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best =
interest
        of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and
        Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes =
(including
        participation by representatives of other Supporting =
Organizations
        if requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by any other
        Supporting Organization. No recommendation of a Supporting =
Organization
        shall be adopted unless the votes in favor of adoption would
        be sufficient for adoption by the Board without taking account
        of either the Directors selected by the Supporting Organization
        or their votes.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The councils of the Address Supporting
      Organization and the Protocol Supporting Organization have been
      advised of both statements of the recommendations of the Names
      Council. The Address Council concluded that there is no address
      policy issue of concern in connection with the recommendations.
      The Protocol Council has not expressed any view on the =
recommendations.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">To allow additional community comment on
      the Names Council's recommendations, ICANN has established a
      web-based Public Comment Forum and will devote a portion of the
      public forum in Yokohama on 15 July 2000 to the issue.</FONT></P>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following section discusses =
principles
      that might be followed in the adoption of new TLDs, and solicits
      comments on specific aspects of those principles.<BR>
      </FONT></P>

      <H2><A NAME=3D"II"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. <U>Suggested =
Principles
      for the Introduction of New TLDs</U></FONT></H2>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The 18/19 April 2000 Names Council =
statement
      recommends that the ICANN Board adopt a policy for the =
introduction
      of new TLDs. In adopting such a policy, several principles should
      be addressed. The following discusses various possible principles
      and poses questions for which community input is specifically
      sought. Those questions, of course, are not meant to be limiting
      and the public is invited to submit comments on all aspects of
      policies for the introduction of new TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IIA"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">A. =
<U>The
      need to maintain the Internet's stability: a &quot;measured and
      responsible&quot; introduction</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The U.S. Government's <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm">White=

      Paper</A> identified four principles that should guide ICANN's
      activities. Of these, the White Paper made clear that ICANN's
      primary mission is to preserve the stability of the =
Internet:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The introduction of a new =
management
        system [to replace management by the U.S. Government and its
        contractors] should not disrupt current operations or create
        competing root systems. During the transition and thereafter,
        the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of
        any DNS management system. Security and reliability of the DNS
        are important aspects of stability, and as a new DNS management
        system is introduced, a comprehensive security strategy should
        be developed.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Introducing new TLDs implies a change in
      the overall structure of the DNS, and it is therefore appropriate
      to take care to introduce any new TLDs in a manner that does
      not endanger stability.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">To help ensure that introducing new TLDs
      does not jeopardize the Internet's stability, the Names Council
      emphasized that the introduction should be done in a =
&quot;measured
      and responsible manner.&quot; According to the Names Council,
      care should be taken to solicit the views of technical standards
      bodies:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The Names Council recognizes that
        any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet,
        and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs,
        which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with
        organizations dealing with Internet protocols and =
standards.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council statement also noted
      that the implementation of a policy for the introduction of new
      TLDs should give due regard to practical considerations, such
      as start-up issues (the &quot;land rush&quot; phenomenon of huge
      query and transaction loads during the first few hours and days
      of registration) and the possibility that many domain-name =
disputes
      would be created. In particular, the Names Council =
identified:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;(a) promoting orderly =
registration
        of names during the initial phases;</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;(b) minimizing the use of gTLDs =
to
        carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; =
and</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;(c) recognizing the need for =
ensuring
        user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and
        the DNS as a whole.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Many have also noted that, as a practical
      matter, the introduction of new TLDs is not an easily reversible
      act, since eliminating a TLD (including all domain names =
registered
      within it) once it has been created may create significant =
hardships.
      For these reasons, some have argued that the TLD introductions
      should begin with a relatively small group, so that if =
difficulties
      arise they are of limited scope and can be effectively addressed
      before proceeding with additional TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In view of these considerations, public
      comment is sought on the following issues:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q1:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In the introduction of new =
TLDs,
        what steps should be taken to coordinate with the Internet =
Engineering
        Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, and other =
organizations
        dealing with Internet protocols and standards?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q2:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What stability concerns are =
associated
        with the initial phases of registration within the =
TLD?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q3:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What can be done to =
eliminate
        or reduce these stability concerns?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q4:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would these stability =
concerns
        be magnified by introducing a large number of TLDs at =
once?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q5:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any practical =
means
        of reversing the introduction of a significant new TLD once it
        goes into operation?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q6:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is it feasible to introduce =
a
        TLD on a &quot;trial basis,&quot; giving clear notice that the
        TLD might be discontinued after the trial is =
completed?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q7:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To ensure continued =
stability,
        what characteristics should be sought in a proposed TLD and in
        the organization(s) proposing to sponsor and/or operate =
it?</FONT></P>
        <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
        HEIGHT=3D"35">
          <TR>
            <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
              <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
              here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
              TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
          </TR>
        </TABLE></CENTER></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IIB"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">B. =
<U>A
      well-controlled, small-scale introduction as a &quot;proof of
      concept&quot; for possible future =
introductions</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Recent experience in the introduction of
      new TLDs is somewhat limited. No new TLD designated as a =
&quot;generic&quot;
      TLD has been introduced for over ten years, since before =
significant
      commercial use of the Internet began. Although dozens of ccTLDs
      have been introduced since the onset of commercial use of the
      Internet in the early 1990s, fewer than 10 of the 245 ccTLDs
      have as many as 100,000 registrations within them. In view of
      the limited recent experience, the Names Council's 18/19 April
      2000 statement made the following suggestion:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;[W]e recommend to the Board that
        a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced =
initially
        and that the future introduction of additional top-level =
domains
        be done only after careful evaluation of the initial =
introduction.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Thus, the Names Council recommended that
      the first group of TLDs introduced serve as a &quot;proof of
      concept.&quot; Although the Names Council did not formally =
recommend
      any specific number of new TLDs that should be intorduced in
      the first group, it did indicate that the first group should
      be used to evaluate the feasibility and utility of a range of
      different types of TLDs:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;The Names Council takes note of =
the
        fact that the WG C report indicates that several types of =
domains
        should be considered in the initial introduction, these being:
        fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered =
top-level
        domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal
        domains.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This recommendation suggests that choices
      about the particular TLDs to be added in the first group, as
      well as the resulting number of TLDs, should be made in a manner
      that promotes effective evaluation of :</FONT></P>

      <UL>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">the feasibilty and utility of =
different
        types of new TLDs,</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">the efficacy of different procedures =
for
        launching new TLDs,</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different policies under which the =
TLDs
        can be administered in the longer term,</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different operational models for the =
registry
        and registrar functions, and</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">different institutional structures for
        the formulation of registration and operation policies within
        the TLD.</FONT>
      </UL>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Public comment is therefore sought on the
      following issues:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q8:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To what extent is the =
experience
        gained from introducing gTLDs in the 1980s applicable to =
present-day
        circumstances?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q9:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> To the extent it is =
applicable,
        what are the lessons to be learned from that =
experience?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q10:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What lessons, if any, can be =
learned
        regarding new gTLD introductions from the experience of the =
ccTLD
        registries?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q11:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Can lessons relevant to =
introduction
        of new TLDs be learned from the recent decisions by a number
        of them to operate in a globally open manner? If so, what =
lessons?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q12:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the Names Council's =
recommendation
        that a &quot;limited number of new top-level domains be =
introduced
        initially&quot; a sensible way to minimize risks to Internet
        stability?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q13:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What steps should be taken =
to
        evaluate carefully the initial introduction of TLDs before =
future
        introduction of additional TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q14:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should a fixed time be =
established
        for all the evaluations, or should the time allowed vary =
depending
        on the nature of the TLD and other circumstances?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q15:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should choices regarding the =
types
        of TLDs included in the initial introduction seek to promote
        effective evaluation of:</FONT></P>
        <UL>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">the feasibilty and =
utility
          of different types of new TLDs?</FONT>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">the efficacy of =
different
          procedures for launching new TLDs?</FONT>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different policies =
under
          which the TLDs can be administered in the longer term?</FONT>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different =
operational
          models for the registry and registrar functions?</FONT>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">different =
institutional
          structures for the formulation of registration and operation
          policies within the TLD?</FONT>
          <LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial">other =
factors?</FONT>
        </UL>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q16:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should any particular goal =
for,
        or limit on, the number of TLDs to be included in the initial
        introduction be established in advance, or alternatively should
        the number included in the initial introduction be guided by
        the extent to which proposals establish sound proofs of concept
        of varied new TLD attributes?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IIC"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">C. =
<U>The
      purposes for adding new TLDs</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In seems appropriate that the selection
      of the types of TLDs to be introduced initially reflect an =
assessment
      of the purposes for adding new TLDs. In discussions generally
      within the Internet community over the past several years, as
      well as in more recent discussions in the DNSO, various =
advantages
      of new TLDs have been cited. These advantages can be grouped
      in three broad categories: enhancement of competition in the
      provision of registration services, enhancement of the utility
      of the DNS, and enhancement of the available number of domain
      names.</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IIC1"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. <U>Enhancing =
competition
        for registration services</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One of the main motivations for the =
change
      in policy reflected in the White Paper was a &quot;widespread
      dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in domain name
      registration.&quot; At the time of the White Paper, registrations
      in the open gTLDs (.com, .net, and .org) were made by a single
      source (Network Solutions) at a price fixed by its cooperative
      agreement with the U. S. Government. Although registrations were
      also available through over 200 ccTLDs worldwide, the =
overwhelming
      majority of those ccTLDs were restricted to registrants that
      were affiliated with the countries involved and the relatively
      few &quot;open&quot; ccTLDs were not extensively used.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Since the establishment of ICANN in =
November
      1998, the competitive conditions have changed significantly.
      Beginning in June 1999, competition was introduced at the =
registrar
      level for registration services and now 45 different accredited
      registrars receive equivalent access to the central registry
      for .com, .net, and .org. Competition at the registrar level
      is robust, resulting in prices significantly lower than a year
      ago and a much larger array of service offerings from which =
consumers
      may choose. In addition to this dramatic growth in competition
      in .com, .net, and .org, competition from the ccTLDs has also
      increased. Many formerly &quot;closed&quot; ccTLDs have begun
      to permit registrations by companies not affiliated with their
      countries; &quot;open&quot; ccTLDs have become more accepted
      within registrants worldwide.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The encouragement of competition in =
registration
      services continues to be a major goal of the Internet community.
      In its 18/19 April 2000 statement, the Names Council stressed
      that &quot;[i]mplementation [of new TLDs] should promote =
competition
      in the domain-name registration business at the registry and
      registrar levels.&quot;</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although competition has increased =
markedly
      in the past year at the registrar level, <B>the registry</B>
      (the authoritative database that maps names within the TLD to
      IP addresses) for all three &quot;open&quot; gTLDs is still =
operated
      by a single company, Network Solutions. This situation limits
      the effectiveness of overall competition and, even aside from
      strictly competitive issues, gives rise to concerns over the
      Internet community's lack of vendor diversity. Some have argued
      these concerns (competition and vendor diversity) make it =
appropriate
      to introduce one or more alternative, fully open, globally =
available
      TLDs. Others have argued that these concerns are no longer so
      pressing as to justify adding new open TLDs. As discussed in
      detail in point 2 below, they assert that having additional,
      undifferentiated TLDs would tend to reduce the utility of the
      DNS by increasing inter-TLD confusion. (E.g., &lt;example.com&gt;
      would be confused with &lt;example.firm&gt;.)</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One concern sometimes raised in this =
connection
      is that .com may have become so highly preferred in the market
      to any other TLD that effective competion among open TLDs is
      no longer likely. Those raising this concern sometimes point
      out that .com enjoys a vastly superior market share compared
      to .net and .org, with .com accounting for 80% of the total =
registrations
      in .com, .net, and .org. This predominance of .com registrations
      continues even though all three TLDs are offered by 45 registrars
      fiercely trying to sell registrations.</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q17:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In view of the current =
competitive
        conditions, should the promotion of effective competition in
        the provision of registration services continue to be a =
significant
        motivation for adding fully open TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q18:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the desire for =
diverse
        vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important =
motivation
        in adding fully open TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q19:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the introduction of =
additional
        undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion
        among Internet users?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q20:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Taking all the relevant =
factors
        into account, should one or more fully open TLDs be included
        in the initial introduction?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q21:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How many?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q22:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How effective would other =
fully
        open TLDs be in providing effective competition to =
.com?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q23:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What can be done to maximize =
the
        prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive to =
consumers
        as alternatives to .com?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q24:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the likelihood of =
effective
        competition with .com be enhanced by making one or more of the
        single-character .com domains (which are currently registered
        to the IANA) available for use as the basis of a third-level
        registry (i.e. a registry that took registration of names in
        the form of &lt;example.e.com&gt; or &lt;example.1.com&gt;)?
        Should the single-character .com domains be made available for
        possible registry usage in conjunction with the initial group
        of additional TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
        HEIGHT=3D"35">
          <TR>
            <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
              <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
              here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
              TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
          </TR>
        </TABLE></CENTER></P>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IIC2"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. <U>Enhancing =
the
        utility of the DNS</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Another motivation frequently cited for
      introducing new TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility
      of the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of adding new
      TLDs should be evaluated based on whether addition of the new
      TLDs:</FONT></P>

      <UL>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">would make it easier for Internet =
users
        to find the web sites and other Internet resources they are =
seeking
        and</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">would make it easier for the providers
        of Internet resources to be found.</FONT>
      </UL>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This view tends to favor adding =
special-purpose
      TLDs and to disfavor adding undifferentiated, open TLDs. To help
      keep TLDs distinct and meaningful, it has been suggested that
      TLDs should be given &quot;charters&quot; which define the =
purposes
      for which they are intended. These charters are intended to =
promote
      the distinctiveness of TLDs over time. Advocates of chartered
      TLDs note that all the present gTLDs (including .com, .net, and
      .org) have defined uses, see <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">RFC
      1591</A>. The definitions of the uses of .com, .net, and .org,
      however, have not been enforced since 1996, when it was decided
      to suspend screening of registrations to reduce delays in =
processing
      applications for registration.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The view that enhancement of the utility
      of the DNS should be a chief goal in introducing new TLDs is
      reflected by the first three principles outlined in the second
      additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental
      report:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;1. Meaning: An application for a
        TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string,
        and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be =
perceived
        by the relevant population of net users. The application may
        contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary
        semantic meaning in a language other than English.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;2. Enforcement: An application =
for
        a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement =
where
        relevant and desired.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;3. Differentiation: The selection
        of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs =
should
        be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing
        and functionality associated with the =
string.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A few have suggested that these =
principles
      (which were approved in WG-C by a vote of 46 yes, 21 no, 1 =
abstain)
      preclude the introduction of any new fully open TLDs. These =
people
      argue that introducing new unrestricted-use TLDs would not =
increase
      the availability of distinctive domain names, but would instead
      decrease the meaning of domain names generally by encouraging
      registration of domain names that are distinguished only by =
unmeaningful
      TLD labels. While the principles of WG-C's 17 April 2000 =
supplemental
      report point strongly toward introducing limited-purpose, =
distinct
      TLDs, most of those favoring them urge that they be applied =
flexibly
      so as not to rule out the introduction of one or more fully open,
      undifferentiated TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Differentiated types of TLDs that have
      been proposed for introduction under a chartered-TLD approach
      include:</FONT></P>

      <UL>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">restricted-use commercial TLDs, such =
as
        .travel (for the travel industry), .movie (for web sites =
dedicated
        to particular films), and .banc (for financial =
institutions).</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs defined by some geographic =
region,
        but not qualifying as ccTLDs under current policies.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a TLD restricted to adult uses (.xxx =
or
        .sex).</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs designated for use by particular
        types of non-commercial organizations, such as .museum and =
.union.
        An existing example of this type of TLD is .edu.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs for use by various affinity =
groups.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">TLDs intended for advocacy uses, such
        as .protest.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a TLD devoted to domains registered by
        individuals for their personal use.</FONT>
      </UL>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Some have suggested that differentiated
      TLDs should be introduced in various systematic ways (e.g., by
      following a predefined taxonomy). Others have favored introducing
      each specific TLD according to a proposal by an organization
      interested in sponsoring the TLD that demonstrates the desire,
      legitimacy, and resources to introduce and manage the TLD in
      an appropriate manner.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In view of these considerations, public
      comment is sought on the following issues:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q25:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is increasing the utility of =
the
        DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the =
introduction
        of new TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q26:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Would the introduction of =
unrestricted,
        undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q27:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If so, are there ways of =
accommodating
        the goal of enhancing registry-level competition with the goal
        of enhancing the utility of the DNS?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q28:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the concept of TLD =
&quot;charters&quot;
        helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the =
DNS?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q29:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are the first three =
principles
        outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17
        April 2000 supplemental report (quoted above) appropriate =
criteria
        for selecting TLDs to be introduced in the first =
group?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q30:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Do those principles preclude =
the
        introduction of any new fully open TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q31:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What types of TLDs should be =
included
        in the first group of additional TLDs to best test the concept
        of chartered TLDs?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q32:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should chartered TLDs be =
introduced
        according to a pre-defined system, or should proposals be =
evaluated
        on an individualized basis?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q33:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If charter proposals are =
evaluated
        on an individualized basis, should any steps should be taken
        to promote stable and orderly evolution of the DNS =
overall?</FONT></P>
        <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
        HEIGHT=3D"35">
          <TR>
            <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
              <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
              here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
              TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
          </TR>
        </TABLE></CENTER></P>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IIC3"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. <U>Enhancing =
the
        number of available domain =
names</U>.</FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A third reason cited for introducing =
additional
      TLDs is that doing so would increase the number of domain names
      available for registration. This rationale is usually based on
      the premise that &quot;all the good names are already taken&quot;
      and that adding TLDs would increase the supply of =
&quot;good&quot;
      names.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In fact, the number of second-level =
domain
      names within a single TLD is quite large (over 10<sup>98</sup>)
      and claims that any particular TLD is effectively exhausted are,
      as a technical matter, misplaced. (Even .com has only =
approximately
      10<sup>8</sup> names registered). Some, however, have noted that
      the group of useful or desirable names is much smaller than the
      total theoretically possible. While this observation is correct,
      even a slight lengthening of possible second-level domain names
      increases the availabile possibilities much more dramatically
      than the addition of new TLDs. For example, under the currently
      followed format rules increasing second-level domain-name length
      by one character multiplies the possible domain names by 37,
      while adding three new TLDs similar to .com, .net, and .org would
      only double them.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Some participants in the discussion have
      asserted that adding undifferentiated TLDs for the purpose of
      increasing the number of available domain names runs counter
      to the goal of enhancing the distinctness of DNS names. In this
      view, adding names that differ from existing ones only because
      they fall into new, undifferentiated TLDs would impair the =
utility
      of the DNS. These participants argue that expansion of the DNS
      name space should not be accomplished by making available =
additional
      names that are likely to be confused with existing names, =
particularly
      since distinctive TLDs could instead be created.</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q34:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Has the inventory of useful =
and
        available domain names reached an unacceptably low =
level?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q35:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Assuming it is important to =
increase
        the inventory of available domain names, should that be done
        by adding TLDs that are not differentiated from the present =
ones?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IID"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">D. =
<U>Delegation
      of policy-formulation requirements for special-purpose =
TLDs</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">As envisioned by the White Paper, ICANN
      is responsible for overall coordination of the DNS. In view of
      the hierarchical nature of the DNS, however, the responsibility
      for establishment of policies within TLDs varies depending on
      the nature of the TLD. Policies for fully open TLDs (such as
      .com, .net, and .org) are formulated through the ICANN process,
      which involves participation of all segments of the global =
Internet
      community. Policies for other TLDs (such as .edu and the ccTLDs),
      on the other hand, have been formulated by focused =
constituencies.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Proponents of limited-purpose TLDs have
      advocated a &quot;sponsorship&quot; paradigm, in which =
policy-formulation
      responsibility for the TLD would be delegated to an organization
      that allows participation of the affected segments of the =
relevant
      communities. The sponsoring organization would have authority
      to make decisions regarding policies applicable to the TLD, =
provided
      they are within the scope of the TLD's charter and comport with
      requirements concerning interoperability, availability of =
registration
      data, and the like intended to ensure that the interests of the
      overall Internet are served. For example, the TLD .museum might
      be sponsored by an association of museums and the .union TLD
      might be sponsored by a group of labor unions. In many respects,
      the sponsorship paradigm is a generalization of the concepts
      underlying appointment of managers for ccTLDs under existing
      ccTLD delegation policy.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">According to proponents, the sponsorship
      paradigm has the advantages of allowing detailed policies for
      limited-purpose TLDs to be established through an easily =
manageable
      process in which those with relevant interests can participate,
      while allowing the more broadly participatory ICANN process to
      focus on issues of general interest to the entire Internet =
community.</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q36:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the formulation of =
policies
        for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring =
organizations?
        In all cases or only in some?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q37:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What measures should be =
employed
        to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is =
appropriately
        representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q38:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In cases where sponsoring =
organizations
        are appointed, what measures should be established to ensure
        that the interests of the global Internet community are served
        in the operation of the TLD?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q39:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should global policy =
requirements
        (adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements of =
representativeness,
        interoperability requirements, etc.) be =
enforced?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IIE"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">E. =
<U>New
      TLDs to meet new types of needs</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The 18/19 April Names Council statement
      recommended that the initial introduction of new TLDs include
      a variety of types of TLDs. Such a diversity in the initial =
introduction
      can provide useful data to determine what types of TLDs should
      be introduced in the future. In addition, introducing diverse
      types of special-purpose TLDs provides the opportunity to meet
      short-term needs for TLDs that are not met by the existing =
TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q40:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any types of new =
TLDs
        that should not be included in the initial introduction? If any
        types should be excluded, why?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><A NAME=3D"IIF"></A><B><FONT SIZE=3D"+1" FACE=3D"Arial">F. =
<U>Start-up
      challenges and the protection of intellectual =
property</U>.</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The statement adopted by the DNSO Names
      Council on 18/19 April 2000 urged that, in connection with the
      implementation of a policy for introducing new TLDs, due regard
      be given to &quot;promoting orderly registration of names during
      the initial phases.&quot; On 15 May 2000, Working Group B issued
      its final report, which amplified on the concern that the startup
      phases of new TLDs can pose special risks to intellectual =
property
      and found consensus that some type of mechanism, yet to be =
determined,
      is necessary in connection with famous trademarks and the =
operation
      of the Domain Name System.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In its statement of 19 May 2000, adopted
      after considering Working Group B's final report, the Names =
Council
      concluded that there is community consensus and recommended that
      there be varying degrees of protection for intellectual property
      during the startup phase of new top-level domains.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">One method of protecting intellectual =
property
      that has been proposed is to prohibit the registration of famous
      and well-known trademarks. Indeed, the White Paper suggested
      that ICANN consider adopting &quot;policies that exclude, either
      pro-actively or retroactively, certain famous trademarks from
      being used as domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the
      designated trademark holder.&quot; In its deliberations, Working
      Group B extensively explored the use of a famous-names list for
      exclusion and reached consensus that such a list was not =
necessary
      or appropriate at the present time. In its 19 May 2000 statement,
      the Names Council &quot;conclude[d] that there is no consensus
      in the community at the present time that such a list should
      be adopted by ICANN.&quot; Thus, it seems clear that measures
      other than a famous-names list for the protection of intellectual
      property during the start-up phases of new TLDs must be =
considered.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The Names Council also concluded that =
different
      types of TLDs warrant different types of protection for =
intellectual
      property. For example, some have reasoned that more protections
      are appropriate in a commercial TLD than in one designated for
      non-commercial uses.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Along with its recommendation for varying
      intellectual-property protections depending on the type of TLD,
      the Names Council also recommended that, as a minimum, the basic
      methods for enforcing infringed rights should always apply. In
      its 19 May 2000 statement, the Names Council recommended that
      the existing procedures (the UDRP and conventionally available
      legal proceedings) should apply where a domain name registrant
      in a chartered TLD violates the charter or other legal =
enforceable
      rights.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Concerns over the effectiveness of the
      UDRP have prompted some in the DNSO Business Constituency to
      propose that the policy be evaluated and overhauled before any
      new TLDs are introduced. For example, as of 13 June 2000 the
      Business Constituency was considering <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.bc.dnso.icann.org/approav5.doc">version
      5 of a position paper entitled &quot;A practical approach to
      new Internet domain names,&quot;</A> which (as one option) =
proposed
      a multi-phase process under which there would be several =
prerequisites
      to the introduction of new TLDs:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;Phase I</FONT></U></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;1. Rapidly evaluate the first 12
        months operation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process =
(implemented
        24 October 1999), and subject to a conclusion that it has been
        successful in meeting its objectives, proceed to phase =
II.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;2. Extend the UDRP wef 1st =
October
        2000 to evaluate claims for ownership transfer based on the =
relevance
        of a well-known trademark to a charter gTLD. Once implemented
        proceed to phase II.</FONT></P>
        <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;Phase II</FONT></U></P>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;Introduce new gTLDs in a gradual
        but systematic way as outlined above, testing each proposed =
gTLD
        against the principles.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Based on the likely implementation =
schedule
      (see below), it is the assessment of the ICANN staff that such
      a phased approach would result in a delay in the introduction
      of new TLDs of nine months or more.<BR>
      </FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q41:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the start up of a new =
TLD
        pose additional risks to intellectual property rights that =
warrant
        additional protections?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q42:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the protections =
afforded
        intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ
        depending on the type of TLD?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q43:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is the availability of the =
UDRP
        and court proceedings as remedies for violations of enforceable
        legal rights an appropriate element of protection of =
intellectual-property
        rights that should apply to all new TLDs? Are there any other
        protections that should be made available in all new TLDs, =
regardless
        of their type?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q44:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the start up of a new =
TLD
        pose difficulties for those other than intellectual property
        owners that should be addressed through special =
procedures?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q45:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What mechanisms for start up =
of
        a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons receive
        a fair chance to obtain registrations?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q46:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Is exclusion of names =
appearing
        on a globally famous trademark list a workable method of =
protecting
        such marks from infringement at the present time? Would an =
exclusion
        mechanism be approprate in the future?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q47:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should introduction of new =
TLDs
        await completion of an evaluation of the operation of the UDRP
        and be subject to a finding that the UDRP has been successful
        in meeting its objectives? How long would such an evaluation
        likely take to complete?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q48:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should introduction of new =
TLDs
        await extension of the UDRP to cover claims for transfer of =
domain
        names based on the relevance of a well-known trademark to a =
chartered
        gTLD? How long would implementing such a revision to the UDRP
        likely take?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <H2><A NAME=3D"III"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. <U>Suggested =
Schedule
      for the Introduction of New TLDs</U></FONT></H2>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following is a draft schedule for the
      initial introduction of new TLDs:</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">13 June 2000 - Initial Postings and
      Drafts:</FONT></B></P>

      <UL>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Background.</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Principles for the =
Introduction
        of New TLDs</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Schedule for the =
Introduction
        of New TLDs</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Suggested Data Elements to Be Sought =
from
        Organizations Applying to Sponsor or Operate TLDs</FONT>
        <LI><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Call for Statements of Interest in =
Proposing
        a New TLD</FONT>
      </UL>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In conjunction with these postings, a =
web-based
      public comment forum is established to receive comments on the
      introduction of new TLDs.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">15 July 2000 - ICANN Public Forum, =
Yokohama</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A portion of the Yokohama agenda will be
      devoted to policies and timelines for the introduction of new
      TLDs. The public forum is an opportunity for public comment and
      dialogue, either in person or through the webcast's online remote
      participation tools.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">16 July 2000 - ICANN Board meeting,
      Yokohama</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The ICANN Board will consider the Names
      Council's 18/19 April 2000 recommendation that the Board adopt
      &quot;a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured
      and responsible manner . . . ,&quot; as well as the Names =
Council's
      19 May 2000 recommendations concerning protection for =
intellectual
      property during the startup phase of new top-level =
domains.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 August 2000 - Call for =
Proposals</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN will issue a formal call for =
proposals,
      accompanied by a New TLD Registry Application Form, instructions
      for filling out the application, and a statement of criteria
      for the Board&#146;s eventual decision.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">It is proposed that the New TLD Registry
      Application Form include the elements shown in <A =
HREF=3D"#IV">Part
      IV below</A>. Because ICANN will seek heterogeneity and diversity
      in applicants' TLD models, none of the data elements should be
      read to restrict or preclude a particular TLD proposal. Comments
      about these proposed application elements should be posted in
      the public comment forum.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 October 2000 - Deadline for =
Proposals</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">All proposals received by the 1 October
      deadline will be made public on the ICANN website as to the data
      elements in <A HREF=3D"#IV-I">I</A> and <A =
HREF=3D"#IV-III">III</A>
      described in <A HREF=3D"#IV">Part VI below</A>. Proposals will
      be posted when received, rather than waiting until 1 October
      to post. Comments on the proposals will be solicited through
      the public comment forum that will be created for that purpose.
      No additional proposals will be accepted after this =
date.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">8 October 2000 - Deadline for Public
      Comments on Proposals</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">This deadline will ensure that at least
      1 week is available for public comments on all proposals; to
      the extent that proposals are received prior to 1 October, the
      comment period will be longer for those proposals.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 November 2000 - Announcement of =
Decision</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">ICANN will announce the decision as to
      the first group of new TLDs to be added to the DNS =
root.</FONT></P>

      <P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1 December 2000 - Completion of =
Registry
      Contracts</FONT></B></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Deadline for ICANN and the selected =
registry
      applicants to sign and publish the new registry =
contracts.</FONT></P>

      <P>&nbsp;</P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In connection with the foregoing =
suggested
      schedule, public comment on the following topics is especially
      solicited:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q49:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the schedule allow =
sufficient
        time for formulation of proposals?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q50:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Does the schedule allow =
sufficient
        time for public comment?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q51:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should all proposals be =
posted
        for comment simultaneously to maintain equal time for public
        comment? Should all proposals be posted for public comment as
        they are received to allow the greatest possible time for =
public
        analysis and comment?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q52:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should the formal =
applications
        be posted in full for public comment? If not, which parts of
        the applications should remain private?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <P><CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER></P>

      <H2><A NAME=3D"IV"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">IV. <U>Suggested Data
      Elements to Be Sought from Organizations Applying to Sponsor
      or Operate TLDs</U></FONT></H2>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">The following is a general proposal for
      the data elements that should be requested of those proposing
      to operate or sponsor new TLDs. The actual application would
      likely require more detail as to these elements:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IV-I"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">I. Information =
about
        the Proposed TLD</FONT></B></P>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Proposed TLD label (i.e., the =
string
          of letters identifying the TLD, such as .com, .net, .org, =
etc.)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q53:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should proposals choose a =
single
        proposed TLD or numerous possibilities?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q54:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN select the TLD =
labels,
        should they be proposed by the applicants for new TLD =
registries,
        or should they be chosen by a consultative process between the
        applicants and ICANN?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q55:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should there be minimum or =
maximum
        length requirements for TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate
        to avoid possible future conflicts with ISO 3166-1 =
codes?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q56:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should there be restrictions =
on
        the types of TLD labels that are established (for example, a
        prohibition of country names)?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q57:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What should be the criteria =
for
        selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English =
language
        TLD labels be favored?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Type of TLD, such as but not =
limited
          to:</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Unrestricted (e.g., =
.com)</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Unrestricted with definition or =
semantic
            meaning, but no enforcement (e.g., .org)</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Restricted to a particular class =
of
            registrants or particular uses (&quot;sponsored&quot; or =
&quot;chartered&quot;,
            e.g., .edu)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q58:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How many new TLDs of each =
type
        should be included in the initial introduction?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q59:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which types of TLDs will =
best
        serve the DNS?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q60:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Are there any types of TLDs =
that
        ICANN should not consider?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q61:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which types, if any, are =
essential
        to the successful testing period?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. In the case of a restricted TLD, =
the
          mechanisms proposed to make the restrictions =
effective</FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">D. Requirements for domain name =
registrants
          in the Proposed TLD</FONT></P>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">E. Purpose, mission, justification =
for
          the TLD</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. What (if anything) will =
distinguish
            the proposed TLD from existing or other proposed =
TLDs?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. What market will be served or =
targeted?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. How would introduction of the =
TLD enhance
            the utility of the DNS?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. For unrestricted TLDs: What will =
be
            the value to the broader Internet community? Will the TLD =
seek
            to provide competition with existing TLD =
registries?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. For restricted TLDs: What will =
be the
            value to the specific community or market to be =
served?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">F. Why should the proposed TLD be =
included
          in the initial introduction of TLDs?</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. What concepts are likely to be =
proven/disproven
            by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. By what criteria should the =
success
            or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Are there any reasons, other =
than the
            desire to evaluate the introduction process, for including =
the
            TLD in the initial introduction?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q62:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Which other structural =
factors,
        if any, should ICANN consider in determining the potential =
success
        of a specific TLD proposal?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">G. Naming conventions within the TLD =
(i.e.
          will registrants register second-level domain names, or will
          the TLD be organized into =
sub-domains?)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IV-II"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">II. =
Information
        about the Proposed Sponsor and Operator of the =
TLD</FONT></B></P>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Company/organization =
information</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Company or organization =
name</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Address</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Business =
locations/offices</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Names of officers, directors, =
and executives</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Annual report or similar =
document</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Current business =
operations</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">7. Past business operations and =
experiences</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">8. Qualifications and experience of =
financial
            and business officers</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">9. Qualifications and experience of =
technical
            officers</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q63:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN accept =
proposals
        from companies formed/forming for the purpose of operating or
        sponsoring a new TLD? If so, how should ICANN determine the =
competence
        of the company?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q64:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> If a company has significant =
operational
        or policy positions not yet filled, how should ICANN evaluate
        the level of competence of officers and employees?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q65:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should ICANN evaluate =
the
        competence of officers and employees?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Registry business model</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Capitalization of =
registry</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Sources of capital</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Revenue model (i.e. for-profit =
or cost-recovery?)</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Business plan</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Allocation of registry/registrar =
functions</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. How will registration services =
be provided
              to registrants (i.e. through a single registrar, selected =
registrars,
              all ICANN-accredited registrars, or some other =
model)?</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Relationship of registry to =
ICANN-accredited
              registrars</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Proposed registration =
fees</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q66:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How much capital should be =
required?
        Should it be a fixed amount or should it vary with the type of
        proposal and the sufficiency of the business plan? How should
        the sufficiency of capital be evaluated?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q67:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN seek diversity =
in
        business models as well as TLD types? Which, if any, business
        models are essential to a successful evaluation =
phase?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q68:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What measures should be in =
place
        to protect registrants from the possibility of a registry =
operator's
        business failure?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. Technical capabilities</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Physical plant</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Hardware</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Software</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">c. Facility =
security</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Data security and =
escrow</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Scalability and load =
capacity</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Registry-to-registrar technical =
and
            other support</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Registrar-to-registrant =
technical and
            other support</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Billing and collection =
operations</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q69:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What should be the minimum =
technical
        requirements to ensure sufficient stability and =
interoperability?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><A NAME=3D"IV-III"></A><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">III. =
Information
        about the Policies and Procedures Applicable to the =
TLD</FONT></B></P>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A. Unrestricted TLDs</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Basic TLD policies (how do they =
differ
            from the policies applicable to .com, .net, and =
.org)?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Policies for selection of, and =
competition
            among, registrars</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Measures for protection of =
intellectual
            property rights</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Procedures for start-up phase of =
TLD</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Dispute-resolution =
procedures</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q70:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> How should ICANN evaluate =
the
        sufficiency of proposed intellectual property =
protections?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q71:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What role should ICANN have =
in
        the start-up procedures for new unrestricted =
TLDs?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">B. Sponsored/chartered/restricted =
TLDs</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Basic TLD policies</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. Criteria for =
registration</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Enforcement procedures and =
mechanisms</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Appeal process from denial of =
registration</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Policies for selection of, and =
competition
            among, registrars</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Measures for protection of =
intellectual
            property rights</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Procedures for start-up phase of =
TLD</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">6. Dispute-resolution =
procedures</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Intellectual-property =
disputes</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Charter =
issues</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
          </BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Question for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q72:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> In what ways should the =
application
        requirements for sponsored/chartered/restricted TLDs differ =
from
        those for open TLDs?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE></CENTER></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <BLOCKQUOTE>
          <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">C. Allocation of policymaking =
responsibilities</FONT></P>
          <BLOCKQUOTE>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">1. Is a sponsoring organization =
proposed
            to receive policymaking responsibility for the TLD? Or will =
policies
            all be made through the ICANN process?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">2. If some policies are to made by =
the
            sponsoring organization, on what subjects?</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">3. Relationship of registry =
operator to
            policymaking body (i.e. which organization decides which =
policies?)</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">4. Policymaking procedures (i.e. =
how would
            future changes in registration or registrar policies be =
made?)</FONT></P>
            <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">5. Openness, transparency, and =
representativeness
            of policymaking process</FONT></P>
            <BLOCKQUOTE>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">a. Selection of policy =
makers</FONT></P>
              <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">b. Types of stakeholders =
represented in
              the policy-formulation process</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
          </BLOCKQUOTE>
        </BLOCKQUOTE>
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Questions for public =
comment</FONT></U><FONT
       FACE=3D"Arial">:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q73:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> Should ICANN require a =
statement
        of policy or should a statement of how policies will be made
        be sufficient?</FONT></P>
        <P><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Q74:</FONT></B><FONT
         COLOR=3D"#0000ff" FACE=3D"Arial"> What level of openness, =
transparency,
        and representativeness in policymaking should ICANN =
require?</FONT></P>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=3D"70%" BORDER=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"2" =
CELLPADDING=3D"0"
      HEIGHT=3D"35">
        <TR>
          <TD WIDTH=3D"100%" BGCOLOR=3D"#ccffcc">
            <P><CENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"/mbx/newtlds/">Click
            here to enter the Public Comment Forum on Introduction of =
New
            TLDs</A></FONT></B></CENTER></TD>
        </TR>
      </TABLE><BR>
      </CENTER></P>

      <H2><A NAME=3D"V"></A><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">V. <U>Call for =
Statements
      of Interest in Proposing a New TLD</U></FONT></H2>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In its 18/19 April 2000 statement =
concerning
      new TLDs, the Names Council stated:</FONT></P>

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">&quot;To assist the Board in the task =
of
        introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the
        ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking
        to operate any new gTLD registry.&quot;</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In accordance with that recommendation,
      the ICANN staff invites expressions of interest from parties
      seeking to operate and/or sponsor any new TLD registry. =
Expressions
      of interest should be brief (generally no more than ten pages)
      but descriptive. All submissions should include =
self-identification,
      brief description of the structure and purpose of the proposed
      TLD, and an indication of the likelihood of submitting a formal
      application for the proposed TLD.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Although those who submit expressions of
      interest will neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged in the
      formal application process, as suggested by the Names Council
      statement the expressions will be used to assist the formulation
      of appropriate policies concerning the consideration of formal
      applications.</FONT></P>

      <P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Please send expressions of interest in
      electronic form to tld-interest@icann.org. All submissions should
      be suitable for public posting. <BR>
      </FONT></P>

      <P><CENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><HR NOSHADE></FONT><FONT =
SIZE=3D"-1"
       FACE=3D"Arial">Comments concerning the layout, construction and
      functionality of this site <BR>
      should be sent to <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:webmaster@icann.org">webmaster@icann.org</A>.</FONT></CEN=
TER></P>

      <P><CENTER><FONT SIZE=3D"-1" FACE=3D"Arial">Page Updated =
17-June-00
<BR>
      </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"-2" FACE=3D"Arial">(c) 2000&nbsp; The =
Internet
      Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">
      </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"-2" FACE=3D"Arial">All rights =
reserved.</FONT></CENTER>
    </TD>
  </TR>
</TABLE></CENTER>

</BODY>
</HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_GDM9YRA39oTeycc+i4ZESQ)--

--Boundary_(ID_DAHMymQTuMmIogRaZdFSaA)--

Reply to: [list | sender only]