.XXX
The proposal for the .XXX TLD, for adult websites, has been resurrected
following an independent review that was concluded in February. The
review found the decision to reject .XXX was unfair and should be
reconsidered. The .XXX proposal has been hanging around ICANN for some
years now, having first been approved in 2005 and then rejected two
years later.
Then in 2008 ICM Registry, the .XXX applicant, filed a complaint with
the Independent Review Panel (IRT). The IRT, independent of ICANN but
recognised in its bylaws, concluded in its report that the decision to
reject .XXX was unfair and should be reconsidered.
At the board meeting on Friday the board directed ICANN's CEO and
general counsel to finalise a report of possible process options for
further consideration. This report is to be made available with options
for public comment within 14 days to enable the community to provide
input on the board processes.
The report will be posted for public comment and then further
consideration by the board at its 38th meeting in Brussels in late June.
Expressions of Interest Process for New GTLDs
The ICANN board, in a surprise decision to many, decided to cancel the
idea of calling for Expressions of Interest (EoI) for new generic Top
Level Domains. It was expected ICANN would call for EoIs to gauge
support for new gTLDs. This followed the call for ICANN staff to present
options for the potential impact of such a process at the previous
meeting in Seoul, South Korea, in December 2009.
ICANN decided that the potential benefits of proceeding with an EOI were
outweighed by the costs of potential delay to the new gTLD programme.
Commenting on the decision, Rod Beckstrom, ICANN's CEO and president,
said the EoI process would have "added another step, another process,
another set of community discussions and debate."
The implementation process for new gTLDs is taking much longer than
anticipated with dates for when ICANN expected to be taking applications
being pushed back several times. This has created problems for would-be
applicants.
Also on new gTLDs, the board decided that there will be no co-ownership
of registries and those acting as registrars for any new gTLD.
Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System
In another development linked to new gTLDs, ICANN has agreed to
establish a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension
System. The Trademark Clearinghouse is to be a means of protecting the
rights of trademark holders in any new gTLDs that are created while the
Uniform Rapid Suspension System is to be the process for suspending
domain name registrations considered to be trademark abuses in new
gTLDs.
"In forming this trademark clearinghouse, we've listened to our
community about providing trademark protection," said Peter Dengate
Thrush, ICANN's Chairman of the Board. "We've also adopted an extremely
rapid process by which people or organisations can challenge trademark
infringement."
The board has asked for final versions to be developed for inclusion in
version four of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.
Internationalised Domain Names and gTLDs
ICANN is backing away from the rule that any new gTLD string has to be
at least three characters, voting in its board meeting to reconsider the
requirement following public comment that this would limit the utility
of Internationalised Domain Names (IDN) gTLDs in some regions of the
world. A revised policy is expected in the next draft (version four) of
the Draft Applicant Guidebook.
DNS Security
Earlier in the week at the meeting, the ICANN's CEO and president, Rod
Beckstrom made some controversial comments on DNS security.
"The domain name system is under attack today as it has never been
before. I have personally consulted with over 20 CEOs of the top
registries and the top registrars globally, all of whom are seeing
increasing attacks and complexity of attacks and who are extremely
concerned," Beckstrom said.
However Chris Disspain, chairman of the Country Code Name Supporting
Organization (ccNSO) council, was none too impressed. Disspain called
Beckstrom's comments "inflammatory", saying:
"Your inflammatory comments to governmental representatives regarding -
in your view - the precarious state of the security of the DNS, have the
potential to undermine the effective and productive relationships
established under ICANN's multi-stakeholder model.
"This could cause great concern among governments regarding how elements
of critical internet resources are operated and managed in their
countries.
"We suggest that ICANN work with all relevant internal and external
stakeholders to develop a clear analysis of the current mechanisms in
place to ensure the ongoing security of the DNS. As a first step, we
urge you to share with us and other stakeholders the underlying facts or
studies that originally led you to make your statements."
An interview with Rod Beckstrom on the board decisions is available
from:
link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid17699847001?bctid=71571577001
Writing on the Internet Governance blog, Milton Mueller says he would
give ICANN "an A for effort. But on substance? Give them an F. On the
.xxx issue, the Board chose to ignore its independent review panel and
refused to rectify what was officially determined to be unfair and
discriminatory treatment. On the vertical integration issue, it issued a
needlessly biased and poorly worded resolution that was an attempt to
clarify things but probably did the opposite. True to form, the board
devoted most of its attention to bending over backwards to accommodate
trademark interests at the expense of market diversity, as most of the
resolutions passed refer to various aspects of how to protect trademark
owners from the horrifying prospect of letting people register names
under new TLDs. And in response to complaints that it had set the fee
bar for new gTLDs too high, the Board issued a vague instruction to its
Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations 'develop a sustainable
approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in
applying for and operating new gTLDs.'"
For more of Milton Mueller's analysis of the outcomes of the ICANN
meeting in Nairobi, check out:
blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/12/4478733.html