Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

New TLDs dominate ICANN board agenda

Kevin Murphy, October 22, 2010, 19:02:49 (UTC), Domain Policy

ICANN has published the agenda for next Thursday’s board meeting and unsurprisingly the new top-level domain process dominates.

The agenda breaks the discussion into several bullet points.

Of interest to absolutely everybody watching the new TLD process is the first bullet – “Update on Timeline”. Everyone wants to know when the Applicant Guidebook will be finalized.

Recently, it became apparent that ICANN seems to view the next draft of the guidebook as a possible candidate for “final” status. As I blogged earlier this week, it could be published in the next two weeks.

The issues of vertical integration of registry and registrar functions, the “Rec 6” objections process, and the Governmental Advisory Committee advice on geographic names are also on the agenda.

The meeting will also discuss the approval of Qatar’s internationalized domain name country-code TLD and the redelegation of the .qa ccTLD to a new entity.

Qatar’s chosen Arabic string was approved back in March, at the same time as other strings that have already been added to the root, so I can only assume that the redelegation issue was what caused the hold-up.

The perennially controversial .xxx application is also due to be wheeled out for another hearing.

Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Comments (1)

  1. MS says:

    “Issues that need urgent attention”

    IDN gTLDs certainly come to mind.

    Source: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team

    Some noted that a fast-track process might be suitable for issues that need urgent attention
    and where there is general agreement concerning the desired outcome. Some noted that
    following a PDP should be the only way to create a consensus policy. Some suggested that
    consensus policies that have broad agreement might also go to fast track. [A possible
    middle ground, which I believe was discussed as part of earlier deliberations but not
    reflected in the report, would be to follow the model that is used for temporary policies
    adopted by the board as outlined in article 4.3.4 of the RAA1: the outcome of a fast track / emergency process would only be temporary. A full PDP would be required to adopt and
    implement the measures on a permanent basis.]

    Also, from the same document:

    – For issues that need urgent attention,
    the ALAC supports the development of
    a streamlined process which will require
    less volunteer and staff time, and less
    elapsed time.

    – INTA agrees that, under certain
    circumstances, emergency procedures
    (requiring by-law amendment) may be
    necessary. INTA concurs with a sunset
    period that requires a subsequent (full)
    PDP procedure to confirm or adapt any
    temporary policy.

    – Recent experiences in the GNSO have
    demonstrated the need for such a
    procedure so the RySG supports this
    recommendation.
    But it should be recognized that some
    issues will be too complex to adequately
    cover in a fast-track process so it would
    be helpful if there were some guidelines
    that could be used to decide when to
    consider a fast track procedure.

Add Your Comment