GeoTLDs - Practical Thoughts

[edit] Introduction

Localization has become a major trend on the Internet. But as it progresses, we find even greater demand for more localization. This also applies to domain names. Advocates of local or regional communities and organisations with a cultural or linguistic purpose have come forward with projects to create TLDs for their own communities. I refer to this type of TLDS as geoTLDs. They serve a local community and are a logical choice to develop for community and thanks to the community. GeoTLDs will enrich the DNS in a way the ccTLDs have influenced the DNS and Internet in the last two decades.

The creation of a TLD has economic, cultural and sometimes political implications. It is therefore necessary to have guidelines for geoTLDs comparable to those in place for country-code TLDs (ccTLDs). The guidelines must establish a balance between need to protect communities’ legitimate rights related to names and the need to minimize barriers for the development of the Internet.

The purpose of this paper is to show that TLD strings with a geographical, cultural or linguistic meaning can and should be approved by ICANN if minimal requirements are met. These can be specified along the following lines:

• The TLD is relevant and meaningful to the concerned community
• The TLD applicant fulfils certain criteria linked to the meaning of the string (see: "GeoTLDs - Requirements Depend on ...")
• The TLD application complies with laws of the relevant government(s)
• The TLD is applied for in good faith with respect to other potential TLD applicants

[edit] The Internet goes local

When the Internet became popular, it was seen as a gateway to the world. Today, it becomes relevant within local communities. Although companies worldwide generate significant revenues on the Internet, user attitudes have changed remarkably in recent years. The focus shifted from global products and services to interacting with local consumers, businesses and organizations.

This trend comes from users’ daily lives, which, inevitably, are generally linked to the local environment. “Local” means interaction within a certain area and in the framework of a specific culture and language. It is statistically established that 90 percent of people's daily life happens within a radius of 12 miles, 80 percent of couples getting married live in a circle of 7 miles and employees drive in average max. 30 miles to their work. (source?)

The major players on the global Internet have identified this development. They have already implemented local strategies to broaden their reach and to safeguard future markets. Locally focused community portals, local Yellow Pages, local Internet marketing and local search have become a reality in the last few years.

In this context, TLDs for local and community purposes have a role to play.

[edit] Why do we need to agree on guidelines now?

Communities whose identity based on language, culture or an urbanity are not served by the global gTLDs and the national ccTLDs. As of today the only visible and serious prospects for new TLDs are communities who derive from these backgrounds. These include:

• .SCO – The Scottish culture and language community (www.dotsco.org)
• .CYM – The Welsh culture and language community (www.dotcym.org)
• .BZH – The Britanny culture and language community (bzh.geobreizh.com)
• .GAL – The Galician Community (www.puntogal.org)
• .LAC – The Latin American Community (www.lacnic.net)
• .AFRICA - The African community
• .NYC – New York City community (www.cb3qn.nyc.gov/page/33828)
• .PARIS - Paris community
• .BERLIN – Berlin community (www.dotberlin.de)
• .BAIRES - Buenos Aires community

To serve the global Internet community with these TLDs, we must ensure that geoTLDs are delegated to reliable registries that are accountable and responsive to the relevant communities. Potential GeoTLD strings must not become victims of misuse and speculation. This is why we cannot just wait until ICANN published the new gTLD applications received.

At the same time, the guidelines must be such that geoTLDs are not discouraged.

If we get it right, TLD strings based on geographical, geopolitical, ethnic and cultural communities will greatly contribute to the development of the Internet.

[edit] Subsidiarity - a key principle for geoTLDs

The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

The principle of subsidiarity logically applies to GeoTLDs. It currently characterizes the relationship between ICANN and ccTLDS, as well the relationship of many national governments to the respective ccTLD.

Whenever possible, a policy for a GeoTLD should be set locally in the respective local community. Only policies that have substantial effects outside of the TLD community should be established in an international framework, such as the ICANN process.

The principle subsidiarity is likely to be observed in geoTLD registries' relationship with relevant authorities. Most of the GeoTLDs policy issues are local within the community and should therefore be addressed by the local community and according to relevant laws. In almost all the forthcoming new Geo Name applications it's the Internet community that will apply and not a geographical region or a political body.

[edit] Safeguards against inappropriate use of geo strings as TLDs

The intrinsic value of geo strings implies that there is a danger of misuse. An speculator might intend to use one or several geo TLDs in total disregard for rights and needs of the communities just to maximise profit. There may also be attempts to hoard geo TLDs for future re-sale to the underlying community - a form of cybersquatting on TLD level.

Geo TLDs should be community-oriented. But unless there are safeguards, communities are at a disadvantage against speculators. To prepare a TLD application, communities need public debate. Their activities cannot be treated confidentially, as the community needs to participate and the sponsor has to fund sufficient support and resources in the public.

Here are some examples of conceivable cases of foreseeable manipulation attempts - or defense against manupulation attempts - with GeoTLD strings:

• Speculative application for a TLD string to shake an eligible applicant down
• Speculative application for a recogniseable geo string, but purporting to have a different purpose
• To prevent a speculative application, a local authority is forced to send in an ill-prepared application for a TLD without the support of the community

In both cases, be it speculation or panic to prevent speculation, the potential of the geo string is squandered. Here are two proposed measures to avoid this kind of destruction.

1. Pre-evaluation of applications

An adequate mechanism could be a pre-evaluation of applications by a standing pre-evaluation committee, for instance by designated people from ICANN, GAC and GNSO. Pre-evaluation is nothing new, it is widely and successfully used in major industries, for instance frequently in the pharmaceutical industry, where pre-evaluation hearings take place before authorities recommend the filing of the application for a new pharmaceutical drug. The TLD process could copy and leverage these well established mechanisms.

Main purposes of the pre-evaluation are

• to increase the quality of the final application
• to give TLD applicants consulting for the application
• to prevent misuse and speculative TLD applications
• to give ICANN more certainty in planning resources for the next TLD evaluation round

Note: The pre-evaluation is not a pre-approval and it is voluntary. Details about the TLD pre-evaluation can be found in other documents we issued.

2. Fullfillment of certain criteria

In this case the applicant for a GeoTLD should be able to answer the following questions with a well-founded “Yes”:

1. Is the proposed TLD string appropriate for a Geo Name, as shown by the following criteria?
   • The TLD string is relevant to Internet users of the community, because it's a recognisable name, abbreviation, or signification of the community.
   • The proposed TLD string addresses the needs and interests of the people making up the community.
   • The TLD string does not harm the DNS in any technically way.
   • The TLD string does not confuse users typographically or visually, e.g. by mixed IDNs, numbers, punctuations or mistakable letters.
   • The TLD string is not confusingly similar or close to existing TLD strings in matters of letters and proposed use.
   • The TLD string does not obviously offend third parties.
   • The TLD string is not obviously designed for bad faith or illegal use.
   • The TLD string is not part of a potentially speculative TLD mass application.
   • The TLD string has a reasonable support of the respective community.
2. Is the applicant’s organisation appropriate to operate the proposed TLD string as registry?
   • The TLD applicant demonstrates a reasonable and adequate support of the community for the applicant’s organisation and for the policy-making process.
   • The TLD applicant represents a wide range and major members of the community.
   • The TLD applicant demonstrates reasonable and adequate participation of the community in the TLD application and the applicant’s organisation.
   • The TLD applicant has made a significant portion of the community aware of the TLD application.
   • The TLD applicant’s organisation is headquartered in the main geographical area of the community?
3. Are other community-relevant criteria fulfilled?
   • The intended community is clearly definable and clearly defined by the TLD applicant.
   • The TLD applicant shows to act in good faith/bona fide in the interest of the community.
   • The TLD applicant has established a reasonable policy-making body with outreach in the respective community.
   • The TLD applicant has established a charter by which relevant second level domains (SLDs) for the respective authorities, administration, institutions and other important community organisations could be delegated and get special protection against misuse.
   • The TLD applicant has a sound business plan which has been positively evaluated by an independent auditor.

[edit] In the case there is more than one community which could use the TLD string

If significant groups making up a community are spread over different regions or countries, the most important conglomerations or centers of the community should be seen as home of that community. This is for instance the case if there are two or more sizeable communities which are interested in the same string or obviously already use the same string in their communication.

It should be up to the applicant to show that not only the interests of the community that applies are reflected but also appropriately the interests of other communities with the same name. Ideally the most important other communities with the same name also support the application. In case the applicant cannot show active support of other communities with the same name, for instance if they are too small to maintain a regular communication or don’t see an opportunity in a TLD, the applicant has at least to show that he has tried to establish a regular communication with the communities.

[edit] Importance of local legislation and governments

The approval of GeoTLDs should incorporate relevant national and local legislation of the applicants home region(s). In many countries the operation of TLDs is not regulated by governmental authorities and is therefore delegated to the private sector, in some countries TLDs can only be operated if governmental authorities are involved. In any case ICANN or GAC decisions should not over-regulate or overrule the respective legislation.

As a multi-stakeholder approach also should incorporate the consulting with relevant governmental parties, the applicant must show that he has

• informed the relevant governments timely about his initiative
• established a regular communication with the relevant governments
• consulted the relevant governments on various questions
• given representatives of the relevant governments the possibility to interact with the applicants organisation on a organisational basis, e.g. as a board member or a patronage
• reserved relevant SLD strings for the use of governments

In principle it's a good idea that ICANN or the TLD applicant ask the relevant governmental authorities about their opinion on the TLD application and the applicants organisation. But as governments are driven by political forces of the governing political parties their opinion can change over time depending on elections or political trends, as seen with the applications of .cat and .asia. Therefore the relevant governmental authorities should only have a veto against the TLD application if national or local legislation assign the operation and management of a TLD clearly to public bodies.

By Dirk Krischenowski