<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[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