| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
On IPR protetion, the report notes that "the lack of any screening or verification in the .info Sunrise period led to serious abuses," and notes that if defensive registration measures were adopted in an unrestricted TLD it "would not be consistent with attracting new users and uses to the DNS."
Finally the report advances, among other policy options, the heretical idea that future TLD rollouts might "rel[y] on UDRP alone, as simpler and appropriate given that trademark registrations may constitute only 2 - 3% of all registrations."
The report's conclusions about competition are noteworthy: "Examining market share, extent of actual choice and price elasticity
suggests that impact [of new TLDs] has been minimal. Other evidence, however, indicates
that TLD expansion has attracted about 20% new registrants and led to new
uses among 40 – 60% of registrants. The most significant contribution has
been the development of facilities-based competition. As a result, new
providers of registry services have been able to compete effectively with
the incumbent registry, VeriSign, on that basis. Innovation has played a
supporting role, and may become increasingly important as the three largest
registries work to distinguish themselves from one another."
The report also concludes (surprise!) that the registry contracts imposed on new TLDs "reflect a level of detail that may not be necessary for future TLDs" and calls them "cumbersome."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN Evaluation Report on New gTLDs Published
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
You will pardon me, I hope, if I note that just about all of the items in the report that diverge from the way things were done do so in a way almost identical to our initial proposal for .Web.
The UDRP-as-method issue, for example, was one of our main points. ICANN created a system, we planned to use it.
This report seems to validate just about every point we made in our application - points that ICANN used to decline to approve .Web, but which are now proving to be true.
After almost 10 years, perhaps it's time for ICANN to allow the pioneers to give it a go?
--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 3 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
ICANN Evaluation Report on New gTLDs Published