Slow down or speed up? It depends on who you ask. ICANN’s ongoing meeting in Seoul has heard very different opinions on whether new gTLDs are ready for prime time. But the real world bottom line seems to be that the application window will not be opening until fall 2010 at the earliest, and that no new gTLDs will be up and running until 2011.
The slow down perspective was very much in evidence at the Sunday, October 25th meeting of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), newly empowered by the formal review process contained in the recently unveiled Affirmation of Commitments (AOC – see https://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN-U.S._AOC for our take on what the AOC really means).
Comments from GAC members indicated a broad consensus that:
• The recently released root scaling study, now undergoing internal review by ICANN’s security evaluators, has introduced a new dynamic in the evaluation of the new gTLD process — given its conclusion that making too many root changes simultaneously could lead to a DNS crash, and that DNSSEC should precede new gTLDs.
• Adequate and balanced protections for trademarks and other rights have yet to be achieved, and must precede any rollout.
• The “best way forward” for DNS stability, rights protection, and other key considerations is to pull back from allowing unlimited new gTLDs and replace it with a “categorization/differentiation” model that divides gTLD by type and sets priorities for which get precedence and how many get added to the root in a given period. However, devising such a detailed categorization/prioritization system was recognized as a challenge not yet confronted.
Late in the afternoon the GAC was joined for an hour by members of ICANN’s policy making Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which was largely in sync with the GAC’s view that more details and deliberation were needed before new gTLD applications were accepted.
In strong contrast, a strong if self-interested message that the process was dragging on too long and that it was time to get on with it were loudly heard at a Monday, October 26th session focused on the state of play of the new gTLD process. ICANN staff were unable to provide a firm date as to when applications would be accepted or even what the remaining steps ahead would be. For example, while the comment period on version 3 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) closes on November 22nd, GNSO feedback on the questions posed by ICANN’s Board regarding the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and Trademark Clearinghouse concepts are not due until December 14th, and ICANN’s Board has not yet decided whether public comment on the GNSO response will be solicited. In any event, staff indicated that a 4th version of the DAG will likely be issued for comment in the first part of 2010, and did not rule out even further drafts before a final DAG is released – leading session observers to conclude that the application window was unlikely to open until the 3rd quarter of 2010 at the earliest.
This lack of clarity and general message of further deliberation and comment periods elicited howls of protest from a long line of speakers representing potential providers of back end technical services, registrars hoping for new domain product to market, and frustrated gTLD applicants. While the frustration of those expending capital in the hopes of profiting from new gTLDs is understandable, it does not appear that the GAC or GNSO are inclined to step down on the accelerator — and they would seem to hold the upper hand within the ICANN ecosystem.
Later on Monday there ensued a spirited and detailed debate on whether the separation of registries from registrars should be eased for new gTLDs. This is a critical and yet unresolved matter for domainers, especially since there will be no price controls at new gTLDs based on the theory that none will have the type of market power exercised by .com. ICA has been on record that we believe that domainers are better served by registry-registrar separation and would only endorse easing it for new gTLDs designed for internal use, such as a corporate TLD, and not for those making domain registrations available to the general public. Regardless of its final disposition, the issue is being hotly debated within the ICANN community and is just one of the thorny details that must be resolved before ICANN will be in a position to let new gTLDs proceed.
So hurry up and wait seems to be the order of the day.