[alac-forum] New process: strategic evaluation and decisions on prospective TLDs first, followed by applications to operate those TLDs.
This submission may be too late to impact on
the current (limited) sTLD (sponsored Top Level Domain) applications
round.
However, we hope it will add to the discussion,
and be considered with regard to the ongoing gTLD proof of concept
consideration by ICANN.
1 Introduction and
summary
We are amazed, dismayed, and disturbed that the
system for evaluating new TLDs appears to be based on process of determining
specific applications.
The fact that these
applications are determined to a criteria does not mitigate the problems of this
approach.
We apologise if the following submission is
long-winded, but please do take the time to read, and seriously consider, the
thrust of our
submission.
This submission questions the
validity and fairness of the current system for allocation of TLDs (top level
domains).
It is submitted that
there should be a two-stage system to determine new TLDs.
The first stage
would be a strategic process of deciding on new TLDs, by asking for submissions,
and proposals, undertaking consultation, and determining prospective
TLDs against a set of criteria; and also undertaking comparative
analysis.
The second stage
would be an applications process, akin to the current process, whereby
applications would be made by operators, with sponsoring bodies where
applicable; these applications being assessed against a set of operational,
technical, sustainability, and viability criteria.
The benefits and
operation of this proposed scheme, and the disbenefits of the existing
scheme are outlined below.
2 Need for a strategic
evaluation process deciding on prospective TLDs before commencement of
application process
Best practise in
creating new developments or services (for example in the
land-planning system, public works contracts, transportation etc) is to
undertake a generic and strategic evaluation - a needs-lead
analysis.
The current system is confused
and arbitrary, and does not provide a realistic phase in which proposals from
global internet communities, or prospective internet user communities, can
be received.
Nor does it provide
an opportunity for a comparative assessment made of existing and potential TLDs,
and their value and restrictions.
These matters should
be considered prior to the applications stage determining whether there
are suitable applications to run TLDs, and the fine details of their
conditions.
We
strongly submit that the system for allocating new TLDs, which is
at present compressed into a single application system (notwithstanding the
criteria developed for such applications), should be separated into a two-stage
process.
The proposed system
would involve a new TLD evaluation stage; the outcome of the evaluations stage would be a set of
proposed new TLDs (with or without proposed restrictions or set
conditions).
An applications stage would follow, with applications
being made by operators and sponsoring bodies, for those TLDs proposed during
the evaluations stage.
The applications
stage would be based on similar lines to the existing process; however, TLDs to
be designated during the applications stage would determined by the findings of
the evaluations stage, based on a set of criteria (including technical and
viability considerations), and taking into account submissions from the internet
community as at present.
3 Failures in
current application system
As detailed in the
trailing, and subsequent paragraphs, the current system has many failures, which
would be avoidable with adoption of the evaluation stage
proposed:
The applications
system does not provide an opportunity for members of particular communities, or
those representative of internet users with particular needs, to make proposals
that could be assessed on an equal and comparative needs-lead basis to other
prospective and existing TLDs.
[e.g. Individuals, or other members of
an internet community seeking a TLD, particularly one without
significant resources, cannot propose a particular TLD and demonstrate its
benefits without finding backing and entering the applications process, or else
putting it into forums and hoping that a significantly-resourced company or
organisation will back the idea].
It is also obvious
that a strategic approach to TLDs is not being met by the current system, the
consultation on criteria for TLDs is still reliant on there being viable
applications.
In practice, the
communities should be able to put forward prospective TLDs, the whole TLD arena
should be strategically considered, and then the decision should be made as to
whether to formally propose new TLDs (with what restrictions and
conditions).
Only then should
applications be sought to operate those TLDs approved by the evaluations
process.
As detailed later in
this submission, should there be no suitable operator for a particular TLD, than
there is no loss, and it is highly possible that there may be a future
application, by the same or different applicants, made in future TLD allocation
processes, taking account of any weaknesses highlighted in the first
application.
4 Remit of evaluation
process
A generic and
strategic evaluation would be broad-based, looking at the existing, and
potential TLDs, their benefits and disbenefits, proposed TLDs from
the global internet community, needs of existing and future internet users,
and the viability of new TLDs, this evaluation would of course take account
of demand, economic viability, value to the communities to be served,
current provision, etc...
The evaluation
process would consider potential TLDs before the application stage
began, to allocate TLD operators.
Therefore, the evaluation
process would have the benefit of considering globally-desired benefits and
registration-restrictions that may be required of a new TLD for a given need or
community, before proposals are put in by operators (without
necessarily binding applicants to detailed conditions, and still leaving scope
for varying and diverse applications for each allocated
TLD).
It should not be a material consideration of
a needs-based analysis (such as this proposed evaluation process) to decide
whether or not there are likely to be suitable bodies to operate a required
service. If there are not suitable bodies at a given point to operate a
required service than the service will not operate - it shouldn't prevent that
service being recognised as a valid and required
service.
5 Increased interest,
competition and calibre of operators and sponsoring
bodies
Should the
evaluation stage be adopted, and then a range of TLDs be proposed for
applications by operators and sponsoring bodies, there would be a great deal
more interest and competition than at present.
For example, if
.charity were considered during the evaluation phase to be a suitable
TLD, and to meet the criteria laid down; it could then be proposed, and
applications invited from operators and sponsoring bodies.
Such bodies
could put applications in with flexibility as to the precise
operation, terms, and conditions, so long as it fell within the bounds set by
the evaluation decision.
It is quite apparent
that this would result in a greater number of applications, than the current
process which requires applicants both to argue the case for their
chosen TLD, as well as proving their capacity to provide the
service technically, and meet the needs of an internet
community.
6 Remit of Applications
Process:
Applications process
should focus on finding operators and sponsoring bodies for TLDs
proposed following the evaluation stage.
It would consider
the relative merits of the applications made to operate each TLD proposed by the
evaluation stage.
This would encourage
a greater number of operators and sponsoring bodies, and would not reduce, and
would be likely to increase, the calibre of the applications and therefore the
usefulness and sustainability of the TLD for the internet community it
serves.
The
applications process would consider the individual merits, and the relative
merits, of applicants for each TLD proposed following the evaluation
stage.
The criteria for a
successful application would include matters of: technical capability,
sustainability, viability, proposed service provision quality, proposed
conditions, developmental capability, and the best interests of the
internet community to be served.
7 Mitigating potential
disbenefits
Should the
evaluation process findings demonstrate a need for a given TLD, it would still
be necessary to find a suitable operator, and consult-upon and agree detailed
considerations, as currently occurs in the TLD process.
Therefore, if a TLD is proposed
following the evaluation stage, it is not determinative that
an operator must be found immediately
during the applications stage.
If during
the applications process, there is no suitable operator found, or suitable conditions cannot be agreed, then there is no compulsion for the TLD to be
assigned, until future scheduled applications process, prior to
which it would be open for business,
internet community representatives, and sponsoring bodies, to seek or prepare
more appropriate applications.
Thus there would be
no more loss than with the current process, and with the evaluation process
there is more likelihood than at present of community members engaging and
preparing for more successful future applications for the same TLD, whether
competing or acting
jointly.
8 Removal of considerations
of kudos, commercial interests, and prestige from allocation of new
TLDs
An evaluation stage
would avoid tainting the decision as to the range of TLDs to be proposed, and
forwarded to the applications stage.
Therefore the
viability and need for all TLDs would be compared; and commercial, or prestigious,
interests are less likely than at present to have an impact on the choice of new
TLDs.
9 Removal of arbitrary nature
of current process
The current
process has resulted in an arbitrary allocation of new TLDs which does
not reflect the global internet communities needs, and is weighted against the
needs of those in comparative poverty, and those internet communities and
users that are less well-connected, or who are more globally-fragmented
than others.
Those global
internet community is poorer, or more fragmented, or does not have large
national, regional or global organisation, many internet communities are
currently less likely to be able to work with operators to prepare a bid in the
current process.
The reasons for this
are many: in some cases they are not any suitable operators in any way
geographically near members of the particular community, in other cases
there may be no financial incentive for an operator to undergo the expense
and trouble of making a case for a particular TLD if it was likely to be
low-income-generating (although many operators might consider running such
a TLD if it were already proposed via the evaluations process).
Other internet
communities may be fragmented or very localised (albeit globally present) and
therefore not have a strong voice, or collaboratory body to co-ordinate or
encourage an application under the current system.
An example of such a
TLD, which would be of enormous benefit, would provide the public with more
verifiable sources of information, and which would be widely taken-up in every
part of the globe, and would encourage more internet use and social cohesion,
would be a TLD for recognised communities (in all their various
(non-governmental) forms including community councils, hamlets, estates,
villages, tribal councils, tribes, island communities, parish councils/meetings,
community meetings, neighbourhood offices, townships). [No doubt that
particular proposal would have difficulties in verification, but complexity
should not be a bar per se to adopting restrictive TLDs which would widely
benefit society.]
Unfortunately, this
proposal and many others are not likely to ever see any
application under the current system.
We would certainly
propose it, but who would co-ordinate finding an operator and making a full
application?
With a system of
strategic TLD evaluation, much fairer TLD proposals would result, and it would
enable more disenfranchised prospective TLD users to make their case for a TLD,
without the onerous burden of having to prepare or persuade others to prepare an
application under the existing process.
The need for
restrictive TLDs as opposed to the open .org TLD is glaringly obvious.
There are no TLDs for bona fide community organisations, charities, voluntary
organisations, or even registered political organisations.
This is why a
strategic evaluation and decision on prospective TLDs is needed first, and then
applications to operate those TLDs should follow.
10 Providing a level playing-field
between those communities with and without TLDs
This proposed
evaluation process would also more properly provide a level-playing field
between those communities who would benefit from a new TLD, rather than those
communities relying on a particular application(s).
11 Needs-lead
requirement
It is fundamental
that process of provisionally allocating new TLDs process should be needs-lead,
and strategic; it should not be confused with immaterial consideration of
the benefits or disbenefits concerned within any particular applications to
operate the given TLD, as is currently the case.
12 Separation of the
'tendering' and evaluation processes
The current system
is in effect partially a tendering process, with the result that anyone or any
community, cannot in reality make a sound TLD proposal without having the
backing to submit an application.
It is not
necessarily the case that those wishing to provide a good service as a
TLD operator, will have the desire or drive to be proponents of a cause
such as the need for a new TLD, as well as being excellent in
terms of technical ability, viability, co-operation,
etc...
Conversely, it is
not necessarily the case that those wishing to propose a new TLD and demonstrate
it benefits, will have the ability to, or be aligned with those who have the
ability to operate such a domain.
The two issues
are separate.
In line with good
practice the world-over, communities or their representatives, decide what
services are required, in a strategic manner; and than undergo the
tendering process find organisations to provide those services, in this case
operation of new TLDs.
In most fields of
public provision, and in public law, globally, it is a trite consideration that
the tendering process for providing goods of services, should always
be separated from the needs-based evaluation of what services are
to be tendered for.
13 Market-lead
considerations
We have read with
concern comments and reports mentioning the 'market lead' benefit of the current
system, and asking for that to be strengthened.
TLDs
are designated for the benefit of society and communities of many different
types - including capital-based, and non-capital-based
communities.
The majority of the
worlds population who still live in ideologically non-capitalist cultures,
and these people and communities are generally users, prospective
users, or effected or benefited by use of the internet in some way.
Even a tribespeople with no access to information society, is likely to have
their future or that of their environment, partly determined by government, or
organisations, or businesses, using information on the internet concerning the
tribe/their environment.
Concepts of
'market-lead' decisions being always beneficial are not accepted by many
sectors of society, or the internet community.
Even if everyone
accepted the 'market-lead' theory it would still not apply to TLD allocation
decision; because according to capital-based ideologies, the
market-lead concept is flawed if you do not have a level-playing
field.
There is not, and
indeed is never likely to be a level-playing field, when it comes to
financial demand and technical expertise, between, for example,
communities and tribes, voluntary organisations, and commercial
enterprises.
Therefore, even
following capital-based concepts, there has to be levelling, a balance, and a
comparison of interests, and that is what we propose with the evaluation
system.
The actual
designation of a new TLD to an operator, should of course, where appropriate,
take into account market forces, as well as network, technical, and co-operate
issues, and, as explained below, this would be strengthened by separating out
the process of proposing new TLDs, and designating operators.
14 Network
considerations
Some commentators
suggest that the current applications system should be more strongly based on
the applicants, the operators, and network than the TLD, we agree that this is
important in the applications stage to ensure technical compatibility,
co-operation, stability, and security; however this should not be a
consideration in the evaluations stage when the actual TLDs themselves are
considered. This two-stage approach would strengthen this approach, and
would provide more candidates per TLD to compete and choose from when deciding
on an operator, taking into account, where appropriate market
forces.
15 Retention of TLD value and
reduction of network abuse
Some commentators
have suggested that greater number of TLDs should be processed, (presumably on a
case-by-case basis only) in a market-lead applications process.
We condemn this
approach, and submit that the value of TLDs is relative not only to their
individual usage, but also to the comparative usage of TLDs, and it requires a
strategic analysis of TLDs to retain value of TLDs, recognition, for everyone's
benefit.
The value of a TLD,
as demonstrated in para 16, is reliant on its usage, its public-knowledge, and
in many cases its restriction.
One example:
if .org was restricted to not-for-profit organisations, in the same way
that businesses benefit from .biz domains, then there would greater implicit
value placed on these domains - including a sense of trust when receiving email
from, or visiting websites by .org registrants - especially considering the
amount of spam, false information, or even just commercial entities, which now
inhabit the .org domain. In turn there would be a higher usage of those
domains, less abuse of the internet system, and there would be a greater ease of
use for internet users, and more confidence in the information gained in our
'information society'.
16 Systematic allocation of
TLDs
TLDs which are
methodically, systematically, and consistently devised according to need are
more likely to be memorable to internet users, more likely to be used therefore,
and more likely to encourage diversity and (in the case of restricted domains)
reliability of the internet, which in turn encourages a more stable and
sustainable internet and information society.
A systematic approach to
TLD allocation is the only fair way of allocating TLDs, and would benefit all
TLDs as opposed to the current arbitrary, irrational, and case-by-case
consideration of TLDs, which does not truly take account of global needs, and
the impact of TLDs on each other.
17
Pre-existing TLDs
The allocation of
.gov, .mil, and .edu TLDs to US institutes only to reinforce the belief of the
majority of internet users in most countries that TLDs are American domains
(although this is based largely on the fact that American firms dominate .com
usage). The opening-up of .us ccTLD (country code top
level domain) in a more usable manner by the US .nic is welcome, but
has come all-to-little and all-to-late to alleviate this widespread
belief.
This situation,
although perhaps unintentional and historical, should certainly not be
ignored.
This underlines the
importance of periodically evaluating TLDs through the process described above,
which would also consider the inter-effects of TLDs on each other, and also any
changes that may be proposed (for example in adding or removing restrictions) to
existing TLDs.
From:
Störm
Poorun
Communications
Officer; Representative Southwark Green Party
Green
Party of England and Wales
United
Kingdom