Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

ICANN lists the ways the new gTLD program sucked

Kevin Murphy, September 24, 2015, 13:07:08 (UTC), Domain Policy

ICANN has published an analysis of the many ways in which the first round of the new gTLD program wasted everyone’s time and money.
The 200-page “New gTLD Program Implementation Review” is essentially a long list of ways the program could have been better, along with dozens of recommendations for possible future changes.
It’s for the most part a fairly dry read, and it is probably not as comprehensive as it could be, but it will be required reading for anyone working on policy concerning, or thinking of applying during, the second application round.
It concludes, for example, that maybe there should be a right to appeal inconsistent objection rulings.
It ponders aloud whether the Community Priority Evaluation should be scrapped or revised.
It wonders whether dot-brands, or other categories of gTLD, should get their own version of the standard Registry Agreement.
There’s also some discussion about the possibility of making the evaluation stage more efficient by grouping applications by applicant or back-end service provider, which would streamline the process but complicate the prioritization queues.
I count 48 “lessons learned” in the document, but as a concise summary covering over three years of the program, it’s necessarily somewhat light on detail.
On my first read, a few omissions jumped out at me.
There’s no discussion at all of the cybersquatting component of the background screening process, for example. Nor is there any mention of Geographic Name Review shortcomings highlighted by the recent .africa Independent Review Process case.
Also, in my view the document goes way too easy on the Governmental Advisory Committee.
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure almost everyone who reads it will notice something lacking.
That’s why it’s now open for public comment.
The document is expected to be used as part of the review leading into the second application round, which somehow seems more distant with each passing day.

Tagged: , ,

Comments (12)

  1. Graham Schreiber says:
    September 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Hi Kevin:
    As Per:
    “There’s no discussion at all of the cybersquatting component of the background screening process,”
    That’s because both ICANN’s RySG & RrSG have been complicit in aiding and abetting the act of CentralNic #ACPA Cybersquatting activities & Racketeering, by their obliging Defensive Registrations of .COM rooted SUB-Domains, to avoid further Infringement & Dilution.
    As for:
    “Nor is there any mention of Geographic Name Review shortcomings”
    It maybe also due to the fact that the CentralNic Fake.cc.COMs were masquerading as ICANN accredited ccNSO / ccTLDs.
    Additionally, those Fake.cc.COMs, having been marketed by the NTIA’s .COM Registry, via the ICANN Registry Agreement, originally with Network Solutions, now VeriSign, which has created both the “likelihood of confusion” and “harm to American / Global consumers”.
    Fortunately the Global & American Consumer has protection from such harmful activities, managed under the US Congress, by the FTC at Sections 5 and 15.
    Cheers, Graham.

    Reply
  2. Domenclature.com says:
    September 24, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    @Murphy,
    So, that’s all you see wrong with the NewgTLD program, “off the top of your head”?
    All the loop holes, all the complaints you rant about daily on your blog regarding the Registries, and registrants, all the reporting you do about ICANN, you came up with those little points?
    Shocking.

    Reply
  3. SoFreeDomains says:
    September 25, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    ICANN should get its house in order because wasting our money and time in the name of new gTLD is not ideal.

    Reply
  4. Reg says:
    September 26, 2015 at 3:52 am

    Do you ever submit comments when issues like this are out for public comment?

    Reply
  5. Graham Schreiber says:
    September 28, 2015 at 1:12 am

    That’s 1st Class …
    “I don’t think it’s ethical to participate in a process that you also report on. Others might do it, but it’s not for me.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Rubens Kuhl

Click here to cancel reply.