Working Group C – new generic top-level domains

Consensus items

1. Yes, there should be new generic top-level domains. Expanding the number of gTLDs will increase consumer choice, diminish the artificial scarcity of names, create opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current name structure, promote electronic commerce, and allow the creation of TLDs designed to serve noncommercial goals.

2. ICANN should begin deployment with six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.

Alternatives: A. slower, more contingent deployment (six as an upper bound), and only in conjunction with trademark protections

B. faster, more certain deployment (announcement of a rollout of hundreds of TLDs over the next few years)

Ongoing work items

3. What process should ICANN use to select gTLD registries and strings in the initial rollout?

A. ICANN should select new gTLD strings and then call for applications from registries seeking to operate those TLDs.

B. ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective criteria and allow them to choose their own gTLDs in response to market considerations.

C. Registries should apply describing their proposed gTLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed gTLD.

Working group C is now considering option C as a consensus call.

4. Must all gTLDs be chartered? Should gTLDs be general-purpose, special-purpose, or a mixture of the two? The sense of the working group appears to be that the namespace should have room for both limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that substantially limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs. There has been extensive discussion within the working group of a set of “principles” seeking to characterize a desirable namespace.

5. What characteristics and qualifications must a registry have? Must all gTLD registries operate an open SRS? What rules should govern access to registrant data?