 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Is ICANN's New Generation of Internet Domain Name Selection Process Thwarting Competition?"
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Mr. David Short
TESTIMONY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL AIR GOOD
MORNING CHAIRMAN UPTON AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
MY NAME IS DAVID
E. SHORT. I AM THE LEGAL DIRECTOR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (“IATA”), BASED IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND. IATA APPRECIATES THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH
THE SUBCOMMITTEE IATA’S EXPERIENCE AS AN APPLICANT FOR ONE OF THE NEW INTERNET TOP
LEVEL DOMAINS, OR “TLDS.” I
AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE IATA IS COMMITTED TO SPONSORING “.TRAVEL” AS A NEW TOP
LEVEL DOMAIN. GIVEN THAT THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY
REPRESENTS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST POPULAR SEGMENTS OF E-COMMERCE, “.TRAVEL”
CLEARLY IS AN OBVIOUS CHOICE FOR ONE OF THE FIRST NEW TLDS TO BE ADDED TO THE INTERNET.
THE
ADDITION OF “.TRAVEL” TO THE INTERNET WOULD GREATLY ENHANCE COMPETITION IN THE
DOMAIN NAME SPACE BY OFFERING SUPPLIERS AND CONSUMERS OF TRAVEL-RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES
CRITICAL ADVANTAGES THAT ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE “.COM” TLD. “.COM” CURRENTLY IS THE DOMINANT TLD FOR
ALL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES, INCLUDING TRAVEL. UNLIKE
“.TRAVEL,” WHICH WOULD BE A RESTRICTED TLD, “.COM” IS AN UNRESTRICTED
TLD. A “.TRAVEL” TLD WOULD HAVE TWO
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OVER THE UNRESTRICTED TLDS. THE
FIRST ADVANTAGE IS THAT, AS A RESTRICTED TLD, “.TRAVEL” WOULD CREATE A
SUBDIVISION OF THE INTERNET WHICH, BY EXCLUDING NON-TRAVEL WEB SITES, WOULD MAKE IT MUCH
MORE EFFICIENT AND EASIER FOR CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES TO LOCATE THE TRAVEL-RELATED ENTITY
OR INFORMATION THEY ARE SEEKING. THE
SECOND ADVANTAGE IS THAT, WITH A “.TRAVEL” TLD, CONSUMERS WILL KNOW THAT WHEN
THEY ACCESS A DOMAIN NAME ENDING IN “.TRAVEL,” THEY WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH A
COMPANY THAT HAS SHOWN ITSELF TO BE A LEGITIMATE PARTICIPANT IN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY BY
SATISFYING CERTAIN OBJECTIVE AND TRANSPARENT QUALITY STANDARDS. BY CONTRAST, UNRESTRICTED TLDS CAN OFFER NO SUCH
INDICATION. WHATEVER
THEIR RESPECTIVE MERITS, NONE OF THE SEVEN NEW TLDS SELECTED BY ICANN PROVIDES THESE TYPES
OF ADVANTAGES. THE SEVEN NEW TLDS DIVIDE INTO
TWO GROUPS. EITHER THEY ARE JUST AS GENERIC
IN SCOPE AS THE “.COM” TLD, OR THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LIMITED IN SCOPE THAN
“.TRAVEL.” WHAT IS MISSING IS THE
CRITICAL MIDDLE AREA, EXEMPLIFIED BY “.TRAVEL,” – WHICH ADDS VALUE BY BEING
RESTRICTED TO A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, BUT IS NOT SO LIMITED IN SCOPE THAT IT PROVIDES
EFFECTIVELY NO COMPETITIVE CHALLENGE IN THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE. AS LONG AS ICANN EXCLUDES TLDS SUCH AS “.TRAVEL,”
THE TRUE POTENTIAL OF E-COMMERCE WILL REMAIN UNTAPPED. UNFORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE OF THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MANNER IN WHICH IT TREATED IATA’S PROPOSAL,
ICANN PRECLUDED ITSELF FROM APPRECIATING HOW “.TRAVEL” WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY
ENHANCE COMPETITION IN THE INTERNET. THE
ADDITION OF NEW TLDS INVOLVES A CRITICAL ASSET FINANCED AND CONTROLLED BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT – NAMELY, THE AUTHORITATIVE, OR “A” ROOT SERVER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING NEW TLDS
MUST COMPLY WITH THE U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.
ICANN’S
TREATMENT OF IATA’S APPLICATION FELL FAR SHORT OF THE MANDATES OF THAT LAW. AMONG OTHER THINGS, ICANN COMPLETELY IGNORED THE
FACT THAT OUR “.TRAVEL” PROPOSAL SATISFIED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE NINE
CRITERIA WHICH ICANN SAID IT WOULD CONSIDER IN EVALUATING THE PROPOSALS. INSTEAD, ICANN SUMMARILY REFUSED TO SELECT “.TRAVEL”
BASED SOLELY ON A NEW AND PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED TENTH CRITERION - “REPRESENTATIVENESS”
- WHICH ICANN APPLIED TO IATA’S APPLICATION IN A DISCRIMINATORY AND OTHERWISE UNFAIR
MANNER. BEFORE
GOING INTO MORE DETAILS REGARDING HOW OUR PROPOSAL WAS TREATED, I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU A
LITTLE MORE ABOUT IATA. IATA IS a
not-for-profit association that has played a leading role in the global travel industry
since 1919. It has 275 member airlines (246
active and 29 associate) in 143 countries. IATA
HAS OFFICES IN 75 countries AROUND THE WORLD. Among
other things, IATA has developed standardized airline ticket formats that are recognized
around the world and make it possible to buy a ticket from a travel agency in TOKYO, that
will be recognized and accepted by a domestic airline in South Africa, for a flight from
Johannesburg to Cape Town. Similarly, the
IATA “interline” system makes it possible to purchase a single ticket, with a
single payment, covering travel on a succession of different airlines. IATA has been entrusted by the industry, and by
governments around the world, to design and equitably administer the coding systems
essential for the smooth and efficient functioning of the travel industry. IATA ALSO
HAS DEVELOPED standards for accreditation and endorsement of travel agencies, AND IT HAS A
LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH TRAVEL AGENTS AND TRAVEL ORGANIZATIONS IN AN EFFORT TO
IMPROVE BOTH THE BUSINESS PROCESSES AND THE MARKETING AND SALE OF TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS.
In addition to its
airline membership, IATA counts among its customers approximately 90,000 IATA accredited
OR ENDORSED travel agents located in 209 countries; the operators of other modes of
transportation such as railways and ferry companies; and numerous other suppliers of
travel-related GOODS AND services including hotels, travel insurance providers, etc. IATA
IS uniquely and ideally positioned to sponsor THE “.TRAVEL” TLD because its core
activities have always included the setting of industry standards to facilitate
cooperation among suppliers OF TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES AND GOODS, for the benefit of their
customers. IT IS ENTIRELY logical that IATA
exercise its traditional leadership role to enable the travel industry and ITS CUSTOMERS
to fully exploit the potential of the Internet. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IATA’S VISION FOR “.TRAVEL”
WAS NEVER LIMITED TO ONLY A PORTION OF THE GLOBAL TRAVEL COMMUNITY. RATHER, BUSINESSES, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND
INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDERS FROM THE ENTIRE TRAVEL
INDUSTRY, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING, WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS
ENDING IN “.TRAVEL”: Scheduled Airlines Charter Airlines Airports Ferries Train Operators Bus and Coach Operators Ground Handlers Catering Companies Car Rental Companies Hotels and Resorts Bed and Breakfast Houses Camp Facility Operators Tourist Boards/Associations
Tourist Facility
Operators
Travel
Guide Publishers Travel
Agents Tour Operators Consolidators Internet Service Providers for Travel Computer
Reservation Systems/Global Distribution Systems CRITICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING “.TRAVEL”,
INCLUDING SETTING OBJECTIVE AND TRANSPARENT STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING WHO QUAlifies TO OBTAIN A DOMAIN NAME, WOULD BE MADE
NOT BY IATA BUT, RATHER, BY THE “.TRAVEL” ADVISORY BOARD, TO BE COMPRISED OF
WORLD-WIDE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. NO INDIVIDUAL SECTORS WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY,
INCLUDING THE AIRLINES, WOULD HAVE “VETO” RIGHTS OVER DECISIONS APPROVED BY A
MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD CONCERNING THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE FOR “.TRAVEL” DOMAIN
NAMES. “.TRAVEL”
ALSO WOULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS THAT ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT MANY TRADE NAMES IN THE
TRAVEL INDUSTRY HAVE COUNTERPARTS IN NON-TRAVEL RELATED BUSINESSES. CONSIDER THE EXAMPLE OF AN ENTITY CALLED SOUTHWEST
INSURANCE COMPANY. IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
DOMINATED BY THE “.COM” TLD, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES WOULD HAVE NO PRIORITY OVER
SOUTHWEST INSURANCE FOR THE DOMAIN NAME “WWW.SOUTHWEST.COM.” THIS SITUATION LIMITS THE ABILITY OF
TRAVEL-RELATED BUSINESSES TO UTILIZE THE INTERNET TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, AND
OFTEN CAUSES CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION AMONG CONSUMERS, WHO ARE UNABLE TO ACCESS A
PARTICULAR TRAVEL-RELATED WEB SITE SIMPLY BY TYPING IN THE TRADE NAME PLUS “.COM.” WITH RESPECT TO TRAVEL-RELATED TRADE NAMES, THIS
PROBLEM WOULD LARGELY EVAPORATE WITH THE CREATION OF THE “.TRAVEL” TLD. WHILE
IATA BELIEVES THAT “.TRAVEL” IS AN IDEAL SELECTION FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF
COMPETITIVE TLDS, AND THAT IATA IS PERFECTLY SUITED TO SPONSOR THIS TLD, WE ARE NOT HERE
TO ASK CONGRESS TO DELIVER THIS RESULT. BUT
WE DO REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE EXERCISE ITS OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT THE U.S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FULFILLS ITS OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OF NEW TOP
LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES. UNFORTUNATELY,
SO FAR COMMERCE HAS GIVEN NO ASSURANCE THAT IT INTENDS TO FULFILL THESE OBLIGATIONS. IT HAS TAKEN NO MEASURES TO CORRECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE TLD SELECTION PROCESS ADMINISTERED LAST FALL BY ICANN. THE
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT IS INESCAPABLY TIED TO THE TLD SELECTION PROCESS, A PROCESS WHICH
BOILS DOWN TO THE ISSUE OF WHICH TLDS THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE TO BE ADDED TO
THE AUTHORITATIVE “A” ROOT SERVER. THE
“A” ROOT SERVER IS A CRITICAL ASSET FINANCED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND
CONTROLLED BY THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT. AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, A TLD MUST BE ADDED TO THE “A” ROOT SERVER IN ORDER TO BE
ACCESSIBLE BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF INTERNET USERS. BOTH ICANN AND THE U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE RECENTLY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT IT IS COMMERCE, NOT ICANN, WHICH ULTIMATELY
DECIDES WHICH TLDS WILL BE ADDED TO THE ROOT SERVER.
BECAUSE
OF THE UNDENIABLE U.S. GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN AND CONTROL OVER THE ROOT SERVER, THE
SELECTION OF NEW TLDS TO ADD TO THE ROOT MUST COMPLY WITH THE MANDATES OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. HOWEVER,
NEITHER ICANN NOR COMMERCE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE APA APPLIES, MUCH LESS TAKEN ANY ACTION
TO REDRESS THE VIOLATIONS OF U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHICH PLAGUED THE ICANN TLD SELECTION
PROCESS LAST FALL. IATA’S PROPOSAL FOR
“.TRAVEL” WAS WIDELY EMBRACED BY THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY, WITH MORE THAN 75 ENTITIES
SUBMITTING COMMENTS TO Icann IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW TLD.
supporters included the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS (“asta”)
-- the world’s largest association of travel professionals representing over 26,000
travel agent members (primarily in the United States); THE Universal Federation of Travel
Agents’ Associations (“UFTAA”) -- the largest federation of travel agent
associations worldwide, representing over 48,000 travel agent members in 97 countries;
INDIVIDUAL travel agents AND OTHER travel agent associations; airlines, airline
associations, airline equipment manufacturers, airports and airport authorities;
e-commerce firms, hotels, railways (including Amtrak and others), travel and tourism
organizations, and individuals. iN ALL, OVER
ONE MILLION TRAVEL INDUSTRY BUSINESSES AROUND THE WORLD, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THEIR
RECOGNIZED ASSOCIATIONS, WENT ON THE RECORD WITH icann IN SUPPORT OF IATA’S “.TRAVEL”
PROPOSAL. THE BROADER BUSINESS
COMMUNITY ALSO GAVE ITS SUPPORT TO “.TRAVEL.”
IN COMMENTS TO ICANN, CITIBANK TOUTED IATA’S EXPERIENCE AND REPUTATION,
AND CHARACTERIZED IATA’s application AS PERHAPS “the single best example of how
the Internet community can benefit from independent management of a top level domain.” in addition, iata’s proposal received a
nearly perfect score of 26 out of 27 possible points, which tied it for first place, in a
study of the tld applications by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
Law School. that study also recommended that
“.travel” be one of six new tlds selected by icann. VIRTUALLY THE ONLY
OPPOSITION TO THE “.TRAVEL” TLD CAME FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF TRAVEL AGENTS WHO
HAVE AN AGENDA OF OPPOSING VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY ENDORSES – NOT
BECAUSE IT IS A BAD IDEA, BUT JUST because IT IS SOMETHING ENDORSED BY THE AIRLINES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
SIGNIFICANT EFFORT AND EXPENSE THAT IATA DEDICATED TO ITS APPLICATION DID NOT RECEIVE
TREATMENT BY ICANN MEETING EVEN THE MOST BASIC STANDARDS OF EQUITY. AT A MINIMUM, IATA WAS
ENTITLED TO FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE CONSIDERATION OF ITS PROPOSAL. IT RECEIVED NEITHER. the
aDMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT PROHIBITS DECISIONS WHICH ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. THIS REQUIRES (1) THAT DECISIONS BE BASED ON A
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS, (2) THAT PARTIES ARE NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST,
AND (3) THAT DECISIONS ARE NOT BASED ON EX PARTE INFLUENCES. IN ADDITION, APA-LIKE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOUND IN
ICANN’S By-Laws, which require ICANN to act consistently, fairly and in a transparent
manner; and the “Memorandum of Understanding” between ICANN and the COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT, which requires ICANN to act in a manner that is reasonable, justifiable and
not arbitrary. ICANN’S TREATMENT
OF IATA’S “.TRAVEL” PROPOSAL FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS
IN THAT ICANN GAVE NO CREDIT FOR THE FACT IATA’S PROPOSAL MET EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
THE NINE EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT ICANN HAD STATED IT WOULD APPLY IN JUDGING TOP LEVEL
DOMAIN APPLICATIONS. INSTEAD, WEEKS AFTER THE
APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, ICANN DECIDED TO INVENT A TENTH AND PREVIOUSLY
UNDISCLOSED CRITERION CALLED “REPRESENTATIVENESS.” ICANN CURSORILY APPLIED THIS NEW REQUIREMENT TO
IATA’S PROPOSAL AND, WITHOUT ANY REAL CONSIDERATION
OF THE ISSUE, DECIDED THAT IT COULD NOT FIND THAT IATA WAS SUFFICIENTLY “REPRESENTATIVE”
OF THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY TO SPONSOR “.TRAVEL”. IN MAKING THIS DECISION, ICANN MADE NO
EFFORT TO PLACE INTO PROPER CONTEXT THE relatively de minimis opposition TO “.TRAVEL.” ICANN NEVER weighed THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS AGAINST
THE overwhelming support for IATA’S PROPOSAL. ICANN
ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT rivalries AMONG DIFFERENT TRAVEL AGENT ASSOCIATIONS
MEANT THAT SOME AGENTS WERE LIKELY TO MAKE NEGATIVE STATEMENTS REGARDING iATA’S
PROPOSAL SOLELY BECAUSE THE MAJOR TRAVEL AGENT ASSOCIATIONS WERE IN FAVOR OF THE NEW TLD. ICANN ALSO
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO WHICH IATA WAS NOT GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. in addition, BECAUSE
“representativeness” was not one of the nine announced evaluation criteria, IATA
had no prior warning that it need even address this factor in its application. IATA was denied adequate notice that if opposition
materialized this would be assumed to constitute conclusive proof of a lack of “representativeness,”
regardless of whether there was any merit to the allegations made in such opposition, and
regardless of the presence of THE counter-balancing and overwhelming support for the
application from throughout the global travel industry.
in addition, iata’S TREATMENT WAS DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE MOST OF THE
OTHER 43 TLD APPLICANTS, INCLUDING ALL SEVEN OF THE PROPOSALS SELECTED BY ICANN, WERE NOT
even SUBJECTED TO THIS “REPRESENTATIVeNESS” CRITERION. IN concluding THAT IATA
WAS not SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY, ICANN, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION,
ACTED TOO HASTILY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A REASONED AND RATIONAL DECISION. THE ICANN STAFF CONCEDED THAT IT “CLEARLY
STRUGGLED” WITH “HOW TO EVALUATE” “.TRAVEL”, IT LACKED “THE
TOOLS TO FIGURE OUT” HOW MUCH OPPOSITION THERE WAS TO “.TRAVEL”, AND WAS
UNABLE TO “GIVE [THE ICANN] BOARD MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT [THE] REPRESENTATIVENESS”
OF “.TRAVEL”. IN ADDITION, ONE
ICANN BOARD MEMBER ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE DELIBERATIONS THAT ICANN MIGHT HAVE REACHED A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HAD IT BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER FURTHER. NEVERTHELESS, ICANN PASSED OVER THE “.TRAVEL”
APPLICATION ESSENTIALLY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE CONCLUSION THAT IATA WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY “REPRESENTATIVE.” icann was clearly
OVERWHELMED BY THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS IT RECEIVED FOR TOP LEVEL DOMAINS. BUT THIS IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXCUSE FOR TREATING
IATA’S PROPOSAL IN SUCH A CAPRICIOUS MANNER. GIVEN
THAT THE INTERNET COMMUNITY HAD ALREADY WAITED TEN YEARS SINCE THE LAST GENERIC TOP LEVEL
DOMAINS WERE ADDED, THE INTERNET COULD HAVE WAITED A FEW ADDITIONAL WEEKS IF THIS WAS WHAT
WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR ICANN TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND REACH A THOROUGH,
WELL-INFORMED AND PRINCIPLED DECISION REGARDING THE IATA PROPOSAL AS WELL AS THE OTHER
APPLICATIONS, CONSISTENT WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. INSTEAD, ICANN RUSHED TO JUDGMENT, PLACING ITS
PRE-oRDAINED SCHEDULE FOR ISSUING ITS DECISION ABOVE ITS OVERRIDING NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS
WHICH WERE WELL-CONSIDERED, CORRECT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APA. THIS IMPROVIDENT
HASTINESS IS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT ICANN REFUSED TO ALLOW APPLICANTS MORE THAN
THREE MINUTES TO MAKE ORAL PRESENTATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PROPOSALS, AND CRAMMED EVERY
ONE OF THESE THREE-MINUTE SESSIONS INTO A SINGLE AFTERNOON MEETING OF THE ICANN BOARD. At a minimum, ICANN NEEDED TO HAVE PROVIDED THE
APPLICANTS WITH SUFFICIENT TIME TO ALLOW THE PROPOSERS TO RECEIVE AND RESPOND TO ICANN’S
CONCERNS IN A MEANINGFUL FASHION. IATA IS DEEPLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS IN THE SELECTION OF NEW TLDS. EITHER COMMERCE itself should undertake to
evaluate the TLD applications in a way that complies with the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, or Commerce should direct ICANN to do so. IF COMMERCE ACCEPTS ICANN’S DECISIONS
WITHOUT SCRUTINY, THEN ICANN IS ACTING LIKE A FEDERAL AGENCY AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE APA. IF ICANN DOES NOT COMPLY, THEN COMMERCE HAS
UNLAWFULLY DELEGATED TO ICANN full, UNCHECKED control to make critical policy decisions
relating to THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE ON THE INTERNET. TO DATE, NEITHER ICANN
NOR COMMERCE HAS PROVIDED ANY INDICATION OF A WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT THESE FUNDAMENTAL
SHORTCOMINGS IN THE TLD SELECTION PROCESS. ON
DECEMBER 15, 2000, IATA SENT A LETTER TO ICANN REQUESTING THAT IT RECONSIDER ITS DECISION
REGARDING “.TRAVEL”. TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE, icann has TAKEN NO STEPS TOWARDS ACTING ON THIS request. ON DECEMBER 26, 2000, IATA SENT LETTER TO COMMERCE
REQUESTING THAT IT TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE APA IS COMPLIED WITH IN
THE ADDITION OF THE NEW TLDS. COMMERCE HAS
NOT RESPONDED TO THIS LETTER.
ICANN’S
FAILURE TO CONSIDER OUR PROPOSAL IN A FAIR MANNER AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST OUR ORGANIZATION. ICANN’S CONDUCT TOWARDS “.TRAVEL”
AND OTHER APPLICANTS CAN ONLY SERVE TO STYMIE THE GROWTH OF COMPETITION IN THE INTERNET. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE INTERNET IS STILL
EXTREMELY DEPENDENT ON THE GENERIC “.COM” TOP LEVEL DOMAIN. TO INCREASE COMPETITION IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY,
CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES MUST BE PROVIDED A COMPELLING REASON TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS
BEHEMOTH. ICANN’S CURRENT APPROACH
PROVIDES NO SUCH REASON.
FOUR OF THE
SEVEN NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS SELECTED BY ICANN LAST NOVEMBER – “.MUSEUM,”
“.COOP,” “.AERO” AND “.PRO” -- ARE LIMITED TLDS THAT SERVE
SMALL GROUPS. THEY MAY BE USEFUL TO THE
INSULAR FIELDS THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, BUT ARE MUCH TOO RESTRICTIVE IN SCOPE TO OFFER
ANY REAL ALTERNATIVE TO “.COM” FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF BUSINESSES SEEKING
DOMAIN NAMES. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR “.NAME.” WHILE THIS TLD HAS A BROAD SCOPE IN THAT ALL
INDIVIDUALS MAY QUALIFY TO REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME IN THE TLD, SUCH DOMAIN NAMES ARE
PERSONAL IN NATURE, AND THIS TLD IS NOT INTENDED AS A COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVE FOR
BUSINESSES TO “.COM” THE
OTHER TWO AWARDEES OF TLDS -- “.INFO” AND “.BIZ” -- ALSO DO NOT
PROVIDE MUCH OF A COMPETITIVE CHOICE VIS-À-VIS “.COM” THE TLD “.INFO” SEEKS TO BE AS WIDELY
AVAILABLE AS “.COM” AND THE TLD “.BIZ” CONNOTES BUSINESS. BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW EITHER OFFERS MUCH
MORE THAN A DUPLICATION OF THE EXISTING DOMAIN NAME SPACE.
THERE IS LITTLE VALUE-ADDED BY THESE TLDS RELATIVE TO “.COM,” AND
THIS NATURALLY LIMITS THEIR COMPETITIVENESS TO “.COM.” THE
GAPING HOLE IN ICANN’S SELECTIONS IS THE LACK OF ANY VALUE-ADDED TOP LEVEL DOMAINS
THAT TARGET LARGE SECTIONS OF THE “.COM” CONSTITUENCY. THE NEW TLDS ARE EITHER TOO BROAD OR TOO NARROW IN
SCOPE. TO HAVE REAL COMPETITION YOU MUST HAVE
EFFECTIVE COMPETITION, WHICH MEANS ALTERNATIVES THAT ADD VALUE TO THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
CHOICES. “.TRAVEL” IS A PRIME
EXAMPLE OF A TLD THAT WOULD ADD SUCH VALUE. A
“.TRAVEL” TLD WOULD PROVIDE BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS THEIR OWN SPECIALIZED
SUBDIVISION OF THE INTERNET, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO A RELATIVELY TINY SECTION
OF E-COMMERCE, SUCH AS MUSEUMS OR COOPERATIVES. RATHER,
IT WOULD ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE TRAVEL INDUSTRY, WHICH REPRESENTS THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF
E-COMMERCE TODAY, AND THAT WOULD ONLY GROW LARGER WITH ITS OWN, DEDICATED INTERNET
SUBDIVISION. HOWEVER,
AS LONG AS ICANN IS ONLY WILLING TO ADD GENERIC WOULD-BE CLONES OF “.COM” AND
LIMITED TLDS DESIGNED TO SERVE MINISCULE SECTORS OF E-COMMERCE, AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITY IN THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SPACE WILL CONTINUE TO BE LOST.
IATA THANKS THE MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR
PROVIDING IT WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE ITS PERSPECTIVE, AND HOPES THAT THE
SUBCOMMITTEE WILL ENCOURAGE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ICANN TO MAKE DECISIONS
REGARDING NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES IN A MANNER THAT IS FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND DESIGNED TO
MAXIMIZE competition on the internet.
|
|||||||||||
|
