The introduction of new TLDs
Summary
I support the introduction within short delays of 6 to 10 new
TLDs.
The TLDs should be delegated to geografically diverse Registries with
different business models.
Delegation of further TLDs in the longer term will be subject to evaluation
of the effect of the initial delegation on the market, and on the structure
and performance of the Internet.
Foreword
As a first thing, I would like to state loud and clear that the DNS
is not a Web resource locator, and should not be used and/or interpreted
as such.
Other means are intended for this purpose, like search engines and
directory services, and I have no doubt that within few years it will be
common practice to search, identify and locate resources on the Web completely
independently from the Domain Name. The IETF is already working on this
issue from different points of view. Examples below.
So, the reason for introducing new TLDs is *not* the rationalization of
the Domain Name Space.
The current situation
At present, the offer of SLDs in open TLDs is essentially limited to
.com, .org, .net. All three TLDs are managed by the same Registry.
Even if with the accreditation
of new Registrars some competition has been introduced at the Registrar
level, some basic characteristics, that are dependent on the business model,
type of organization, localization of the Registry are fixed.
That means that we have essentially one model for dispute resolution,
one model for the distribution of data between Registrar and Registry (the
so called "thin Registry model"), localization in one single country, and
so on.
The need for the future
It is essential that competition will be brought to the Registry level
as well, with the introduction of different business models, of different
technical solutions, of different business practices, of localization in
different geographic regions, and so on. This evolution will be highly
beneficial for the market, because will not only "expand the Domain Name
Space" as it is commonly said, but increase also the possibilities of choice
for the customers.
ICANN's approach of defining first a limited number of TLDs to be delegated
in an initial test phase is correct, but for the test to be significative
(and to meet the high expectations of the market) the number of initially
deployed TLDs should be reasonably wide. WG-C
has identified this number to be between
6 and 10: I believe this to be the best compromise.
Examples of different type of TLDs to be included in the testbed:
-
"Chartered" TLDs, where the registration is subject to the fulfillment
of specific conditions in terms of future use of the SLDs, and "open" TLDs,
where no such restriction apply;
-
TLDs with different dispute resolution policies, i.e. TLDs where trademarks
are better protected, and TLDs where such protection is limited or even
absent;
-
TLDs where the data are essentially managed by the Registry ("Thick Registry"
or "Heavy Registry" model) and TLDs where the data are essentially managed
by the Registrar ("Thin Registry" or "Lightweight Registry" model);
-
TLDs managed by for-profit Registries, and TLDs managed by not-for-profit
Registries;
-
TLDs that are managed by Registries located in different areas of the world.
Following the initial test phase, full deployment of a consistent number
of new alternatives should be possible.
Conclusion
New TLDs should be introduced in a controlled manner, but rapidly.
The rationale for this is *not* to allow more "meaningful" names to
be available, because this need will become less and less important with
the development of new technologies for locating resources on the Web,
but to allow a wider choice of business models and proposals to the customers.
