ICANN has just announced that, starting with the June meeting in Prague, the ICANN Board will no longer meet and cast votes on the final day of its three annual public meetings (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr12-en.htm).
The best thing about the proposed .Com renewal agreement is what’s not in it – the untested Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) mechanism, which trademark interests initially portrayed as a narrow supplement to the UDRP yet continue to try to convert into a cut-rate substitute for that increasingly unreliable arbitration process. URS is required to be in place when the first new gTLD is added to the root, which will probably occur in the first part of 2013 (unless we witness further TAS-like delays).
One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with ICANN is that, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with its policy decisions, it often seems incapable of sticking to them for very long. Certainly there’s a virtue to being open to reexamining certain matters. But when an issue has been debated ad nauseam there comes a point where no new argument can be made, no new information is forthcoming, and there’s absolutely no reason to revisit the matter -- especially if it’s a divisive one.
GNSO Council to Discuss Whether ICANN Engaged in “Misrepresentation of the Truth” on Thick WHOIS for .Com
ICANN has put the DNS-centric community on notice for quite some time that the upper limit of its ability to conduct simultaneous evaluations of new gTLD applications would be around 500, and if a greater number of applications was received in the opening round it would need to resort to a batching system that used some means of prioritizing applications for processing. But it was always vague about how batching might work.
On March 27th ICANN published a proposed revision of the .Com registry agreement to govern VeriSign’s continued management of the most populous gTLD registry from December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2018. The announcement filled us with a sense of déjà vu tinged with nostalgia, as the ICA was established in reaction to the controversy that ensued when the 2006 .Com agreement, now being renewed, was unveiled as the negotiated settlement of litigation brought against ICANN by VeriSign.
ICA Tells ICANN that URS Needs Careful Implementation, Not Conversion to a Cut-Rate UDRP – And Don’t Even Think About Imposing URS on .Com via Contract Negotiations
Last month, in response to continuing concerns and some outright confusion about whether brand owners would be compelled to pony up $185k application fees for defensive gTLD registrations, ICANN opened up a comment period for the purpose of clarifying the matter.
During the Public Forum held on Thursday, March 15th by ICANN’s Board of Directors at its just-concluded meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica, ICA Counsel Philip Corwin addressed the Board during the portion of the Forum devoted to an exchange of views on “Implementation issues around new gTLD rollout”.
Late on Tuesday, March 13th in San Jose, Costa Rica ICANN’s Board and its Governmental Advisory Council (GAC) met in open session to discuss a wide range of issues.
NTIA: ICANN Not Qualified to Be Awarded IANA Contract – And Therefore Shall Keep Running IANA for the Present
The ever-sunny skies over San Jose, Costa Rica were darkened by a dark cloud from Washington on the morning of March 10th, the opening day of activities at ICANN’s 43rd Public Meeting. The pall was cast by a notice posted by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) stating that it had canceled the Request for Proposal (RFP) to administer the contract to operate the authoritative DNS root server per the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).