Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

How “final” is the new TLD guidebook?

Kevin Murphy, November 19, 2010, 18:27:26 (UTC), Domain Registries

Many would-be new top-level domain registries were pleasantly surprised a week ago when ICANN published the latest Applicant Guidebook and referred to it as the “proposed final” version.
But it was pretty clear, even on a cursory reading, that the AGB is far from complete; in some cases, text is explicitly referred to as being subject to further revision.
There’s also a public comment period ongoing, providing feedback some of which will presumably be taken on board by ICANN at its Cartagena meeting next month.
But ICANN has now provided a little bit more clarity on how “final” the “proposed final” AGB really is.
Senior veep Kurt Pritz, ICANN’s point man on the new TLD program, had this to say on Thursday’s teleconference of the GNSO Council:

There are always going to be changes to the guidebook. And so, even though this is the proposed final guidebook, we’re doing some final work on trying to find areas of accommodation with the Recommendation 6 working group and making some changes there, and working through perhaps a registry code of conduct; there are perhaps some issues with data protection there.
If folks want to consider this as final it will have to be with the understanding that the guidebook will always be changing, but having an understanding that those changes really don’t materially change the positions of applicants or the decisions of whether or not to go ahead and apply or the resources necessary to apply or sustain registry operations.

I reported on some of the issues with the Rec 6 working group, which is dealing with the “morality an public order objections” process, earlier this week.
The registry code of conduct, which sets limits on what data can be shared in co-owned registries/registrars, was new in the latest AGB draft. It looks to me like the kind of thing you’d normally expect to be debated for many months before being accepted.
But apparently future changes to these parts of the guidebook will not be substantive enough to change potential applicants’ plans.
Pritz said on the GNSO call that the current public comment period, which ends on the day of the Cartagena board meeting, could be thought of as similar to the comment periods that precede votes on ICANN’s budget.
In those cases, the board votes to approve the budget subject to changes based on public comments in advance of those changes being made.
It seems to me that the board’s options in Cartagena are to a) approve the AGB, b) approve it subject to directed changes (the “budget” scenario), or c) delay approval pending further community work.
I’m guessing option b) is the preferred outcome, but there’s no predicting what surprises could emerge over the next few weeks.

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

  1. It’s all a charade. The ICANN comment period ends December 10, the same day as the Board meeting, and there’s no evidence the members of the Board ever read the comments, or even the “Summary of Comments” (which won’t be produced by staff until after the comment period has concluded).

  2. MS says:

    With continuous delays to the “final” New gTLD AGB, Will we see a change in how policy is made? Priority based, where ICANN will work based on urgency? It is being discussed and hopefully this direction will be adopted.
    It is unfortunate that internationalized TLD’s of Existing gTLD’s are continued to be held ‘hostage’ under this AGB where supposedly as it’s name suggests, it is supposed to handle “NEW” gTLD’s, Not gTLD’s which had IDN domains registered under them for 10 years.

  3. Frankly what Kurt Pritz say makes perfect sense to me.
    Rec. 6 — the “morality” recommendation — already has substantial progress from the Working Group (I was a member) and can’t be finalized yet because the GAC hasn’t met (the GAC only exists when it meets, which is at ICANN’s meeting).
    The “code of conduct” idea is an obvious one, and yes it should have been brought up earlier, but again I don’t see that there’s going to be a lot of disagreement about it. I’m only worried that they don’t pile on a whole bunch of onerous but largely useless requirements — a sort of TSA strip-search of dubious efficacy which nonetheless is very costly to registries.
    Your (b) scenario is obviously what’s envisioned, and you’re right to consider it the likely outcome.

  4. […] How “final” is the new TLD guidebook? […]

Add Your Comment