Advice on Definitions

(Note: These definitions were submitted by the GNSO Working Group). 

As its initial task, the Working Group considered definitions for Consumer Trust, Competition, and Consumer Choice in the context of the DNS and ICANN’s gTLD expansion program. As a threshold matter, the Working Group established this definition of consumer, which is critical to two of the three defined terms:

Consumer is defined as actual and potential Internet users and registrants.

Consistent with the Affirmation of Commitments, this definition of Consumer is designed to focus on the interests of anyone or any entity taking the role of an Internet user or domain name registrant.

The definition focuses not on the nature of an entity, but rather on the role it plays by using the DNS to do resolutions or to register a domain name. Therefore, any entity can be regarded as a consumer, including individuals, businesses, governments, non-profits, etc. When any of these entities are also playing other roles with respect to the DNS – such as a registry operator or registrar – their interests are not relevant to this definition.

Including the above definition of Consumer, the working group recommends these definitions for the key terms in the AOC and the ICANN Board resolution:

• Consumer Trust is defined as the confidence Consumers have in the domain name system. This includes (i) trust in the consistency of name resolution (ii) confidence that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling the Registry’s stated purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws and (iii) confidence in ICANN’s compliance function.
• Consumer Choice is defined as the range of options available to Consumers for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer meaningful choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants.
• Competition is defined as the quantity, diversity, and the potential for and actualmarket rivalry of TLDs, TLD registry operators, and registrars.

Notes on these definitions:

Note 1. The term “Consumer” was specifically used in the Affirmation and the ICANN Board resolution that created this WG. The WG defines "Consumer" as "actual and potential users and registrants". Some commenters believe that the correct term to use in all publications instead of "Consumer" should be "Internet User" and "Consumers" as "Internet Users" whether they are registrants or not.

Note 2. The Consumer Trust definition has three aspects:

1. First, Internet users need confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the resolution of domain names they reference in email addresses, apps, and web browsing.
2. Second, registrants of domain names need confidence that the TLD registry they have selected will actually fulfill its proposed purpose and promises that drove their selection. For example, a bank that invests in moving its registrations to the .bank gTLD wants to be able to trust that .bank will honor its promise to allow only legitimate banks to hold domain names. The registrant will also trust that ICANN will hold the gTLD operator to its promises, ICANN policies, and any applicable national laws.
3. Third, consumers need to have confidence in the efforts of registry operators and registrars to curtail abuse and to ensure respect for intellectual property rights, prevent fraud, crime, and other illegal conduct, as well as confidence that ICANN will enforce requirements imposed on Registry operators and Registrars to prevent these abuses. If consumers believe that new gTLDs are failing to prevent these abuses, then consumers will lose trust in the domain name system.

Trustor (who trusts) = Registrants and users (referred to as “consumers” in the Affirmation)

Note 3. A minority of WG members objected to the inclusion of “national laws” in the definition of Consumer Trust. Advocates of including the term argued that governments and the GAC expect ICANN and its contract parties to respect applicable national laws, citing several of ICANN’s foundational documents:

• Articles of Incorporation: “The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local laws." 
• Applicant Guidebook: “National Law” is cited as potential basis for Government objections, GAC Early Warning, and/or GAC advice.
• Affirmation of Commitments: “9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws.”

• Bylaws: regarding ccTLDs: “provided that such policies do not conflict with the law applicable to the ccTLD manager." 

In addition, a set of 2011 working papers from the European Commission also cited the importance of national laws, indicate the political lens through which the new gTLD program will be judged by governments.

Note 4. In the definition of Consumer Choice, “Meaningful" choices for registrants is when they have the option of choosing among TLDs that are relevant to the registrant’s domain name, at reasonable prices and with expectations of quality of service by the registry operator. For Internet users, “Meaningful” choices would be evident when they are choosing from competing hyperlinks displayed in search results, referrals, advertisements, etc., in that a TLD could convey something about the context, content, and quality of the linked resource.

Note 5. Competition is closely related to the idea of Consumer Choice. The WG adopted a distinction in that Consumer Choice is evident in the quality and diversity of TLD choices available to registrants and users. Competition is evident when multiple suppliers are competing in terms of the quality, price, and diversity of TLDs they offer. Competition can take many forms, one of which is price, and the community should not begin with the expectation that the principle of competition in the new gTLD space will be based on price alone. In addition to changes in price, competition could instead be based on security, abuse protection, and other differentiators that registries choose to offer.

Note 6. The definition of Competition looks at all TLDs, not just gTLDs. The working group recognizes that ccTLDs are potential competitors to gTLDs.

Note 7. Competition leads to more efficient production and provides consumer benefits, such as improvements in pricing, operating quality, service, and consumer choice. However, the proliferation of new gTLDs may also impose costs on consumers and other market participants in the form of cybercrimes, fraud, consumer confusion, and defensive registrations, and it is not yet certain whether competition, or other controls, will eliminate or materially reduce these costs.

Note 8. All definitions are presented individually. However, these definitions need to be considered holistically in order to determine "the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" (Affirmation Para 9.3).

The working group adopted the following definitions to accommodate this request:

• “Closed gTLD” refers to a gTLD where ICANN has granted the paragraph 6 exemption from Specification 9: Registry Operator Code of Conduct.
• “Open gTLD” refers to a gTLD that has not been granted an exemption from Specification 9: Registry Operator Code of Conduct. Community TLDs and TLDs with self-imposed registrant restrictions would still be regarded as open gTLDs under this definition, unless they have been granted an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct.
• “Closed Brand gTLD” refers to a closed gTLD where the TLD string is a Trademark held by the registry operator. (e.g. .Microsoft, .Google, .HSBC )
• “Closed Keyword gTLD” refers to a closed gTLD where the TLD string is not a recognized Trademark held by the registry operator. (e.g. .search, .book, .music )