DNSO/WG-Review
WGR12. Specialized Top Level Domains
Background
The Name Council created he WG-Review inorder
to seek additional inputs to its own questionnaire on consensus-building
procedures from Internet Stakeholders. Mrs YJ Park, Chair person
of the WG-Review has proposed 10 subjects for the review of the
Working Group. Three additional subjects have added by the WG-Review
Members. These subjects are presented on separated pages to the
advantage of the Members of the Working Group.
Mail
to the WG-Review Chair - 01/02/2001
the ICANN has adopted
a new procedure in order to evaluate and accept TLDs. This procedure
rises many questions (legality, legitimacy, terms and conditions,
industrial property, duration of the propositions) which have
never been discussed not voted. This should have been discussed
within the DNSO
ICANN Board has clearly
stated at the GAC public meeting in MDR that the DNS system could
accept one million of TLDs. Will the above procedure apply to
them all with 50 billions of US$ as an expected return for the
ICANN or will they become more common. This is of the utmost
importance for the STLDs: this should be discussed within the
DNSO/STLD and any rate decrease policy be approved in common.
What is going to be the
future attitude of the ICANN regarding the root, its management,
the stability of the root service, the dissemination of the root
servers? Would the sTLD and the ISP be directly associated?
one of Jon Postel position
was "no conflict" in the TLD area. The WIPO and the
GAC have declare TLD space as public. specialized TLDs and prospective
sTLDs should be given a space to dialog with non ICANN approved
TLDs.
several ccTLDs compete
with sTLDs. Would here not be a dialog area for them within the
DNSO?
most of the propositions
have adopted the existing UDRP. This procedure has not been defined
in cooperation with any specialized TLD and does not take into
account the specificities of charter and do not define a domain
name as such and as part of the name space of a specialized TLD.
This should have been discussed and acted upon in the DNSO/STLD
group.
there should be test bed
period for any new TLD before any decision of the ICANN. The
terms and conditions of such a test bed period and the rights
of the registrants should be agreed within the DNSO/STLD and
approved by the BoD to permit a fair and protected try.
in spite of the FCC and
ICANN warnings several registrars pre-register Domain Names in
violation of the sTLDs sunrise plans. Actions should be studied
at DNSO/STLD the ICANN could undertake in such cases.
novelties introduce new
concepts in terms of usage of the DNS, hence of the definition
of domain names and TLDs. This kind of topics should be discussed
withe gTLDs and ccTLDs.
specialized TLDs may require
not to disclose or to disclose more information about their registrants.
Special WhoIs should be develop and or new additions should be
brought to the WhoIs.
Definition of the sTLDs
and TLDs community Best Practice.
application of TLDs in
local language?
definition of he nature
and of the obligations/protection of the local or private TLDs
organization of a procedure
of appeal against the TLDs
creation of a site of
all TLDs (ICANN and not ICANN proposed) to common advantage.
contract of registration
of the domain names.
joint position concerting
the TM, freespeach, copyrights, novation, etc.. and the DNS.
various types of TLDs
management programs (existing, joint specification, development
sharing)
multilingual domain names
direct negotiation vs.
published contribution to the ICANN
Debated questions by the
IDNSO
The IDNSO Char has currently identified 4 Centers of
Interest. Several are under way proposed bu CINICs.
These Centers of Interest are:
Whois 
