ICANN's new [icannwatch.org] lease on life (which has received surprisingly scant coverage, negative or otherwise) means that they are now even more empowered to stonewall, mislead, and generally act in the abominable fashion we have all come to know and hate. Job One of their new mandate is to:

...implement an objective process for selecting new Top Level Domains...

The call for new TLDs was also a prime reason for the creation of ICANN in the first place. They could not have made more of a mess of that if they had tried (and some suspect that that is exactly what they did). I submit that it is time to look past ICANN, and past the USG which has likewise bungled its self-appointed role of overseer. Even Americans opposed to the ICANN hegemony seem to hold little sway with their government, and I must admit I have seen little evidence that many of them tried very hard, though perhaps I am being unfair.

You, I, and others being foreigners are given even shorter shrift. As the saying goes: thing globally, act locally. I urge you to get in touch with your own government, explain your concerns, educate them on the finer nuances if need be. I am attempting to do so here in Canada and it isn't as hard as it might sound. There is a natural aversion to the USG having sole control of the internet's off switch. Additionally at least our two ccTLDs (and many of the other large ones) have not bought into the ICANN groupthink, nor have the RIRs. They know, probably better than we do, what a crooked outfit ICANN is, and sooner or later much of the rest of the world may just let ICANN and the USG take their ball and go home. -g
 

1. Usage of the new TLDs. All else equal, I think most folks would agree that a TLD is of greater value to the world -- and we want more of this sort in the future -- if it includes more domain names that actually are put to active use, e.g. to provide web content (though, to be sure, there are other ways to use a domain name!).
2. Enforcement of registration restrictions. All else equal, I think most folks would agree that it's better for a TLD to enforce the rules it has drafted than to let those rules lie fallow, unenforced. (Of course, all might not be equal; if enforcement were particularly difficult or costly, it might not make sense after all. But then we'd want to consider possible efforts at enforcement that are easier or cheaper)
3. Sunrise policies' effect on protecting key domain names. All else equal, a sunrise policy that successfully assigns key famous names to the registrants of the corresponding trademarks is probably preferable to one that fails to do so. With a sensible sample of domains (say, the .COMs used by Fortune 1000 companies), it's easy enough to check who got the corresponding .BIZs and .INFOs -- whether these companies got them, or cybersquatters got them, or consumer groups, or something else.

In the past, I've tried to answer some of these questions, e.g. with Survey of Usage of the .BIZ TLD [harvard.edu] and similar research as to .NAME [harvard.edu]. Making the connections to the specific areas of research suggested above -- 1) I've prepared an analysis of usage rates of .BIZ domains [harvard.edu], 2) a listing of noncomplying .NAME domains [harvard.edu], 3) a framework for tracking disposition of famous names [harvard.edu] (to be sure, so far applied to open ccTLDs rather than new gTLDs).

I haven't thought much recently about extending these projects -- to do a comprehensive comparison of web usage rates across the new gTLDs, for example -- though the methodology is clear and the analysis tools already in place. Anyone interested in the results?

Ben Edelman [harvard.edu]
Berkman Center for Internet & Society [harvard.edu]
Harvard Law School [harvard.edu]

The ICANN Board, in a move which reverses Stuart Lynn's proposal for at least 3 more sponsored TLDs, announced its view that any further TLDs should be postponed indefinitely, on the grounds that they should focus on Evaluation, and on the grounds that they were understaffed.

This is astonishing. Read their Oct 20 comments here:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13oct03 .htm [icann.org]

"Mr. Twomey reviewed for the Board... considerations raised by the community and Board members on the creation of new sTLDs and new TLDs generally. ...and what timeline for the consideration of new sTLDs, and eventually new generic TLDs was feasible and responsible in light of work to be done."

"A suggestion was that gTLD specific issues be set aside until these issues could be reviewed and examined in detail, expert analysis could be undertaken and community input received. Further, it was noted that the nature of TLD relationships with ICANN was a structure under much debate at present, and deserved a better understanding of the goals of the parties prior to expanding the number of these relationships."

"Board members remarked on the significant staffing constraints for ICANN at present, and the foreseen lack of an ability for ICANN to both oversee a round of new sTLD applications, and also invest significant resources and time in gathering and analyzing data on gTLD issues."

"The board debated the wisdom in moving ahead with the creation of new TLDs at this time, in light of the need to shortly commence a full scale review of policy in this area. A brief debate ensued among Board members as to the appropriate set of issues that should be included in a review and development of policy relating to the creation of new TLDs."

"Board members voiced concerns that many of the TLDs created during the 2000 round were still struggling with myriad acceptance and distribution issues, and that these issues should be carefully examined and addressed to the extent possible prior to considering the creation of new TLDs on a large-scale basis."

"Discussion ensued among the Board members; in particular, board members focused on the short time frame set forth in the new MoU for the development of strategy and policy in this area, and concerns that any action on sTLDs at present would detract from that effort"

"In summarizing the views expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the discussion among the Board did not seem supportive of moving forward with a limited round of new sTLDs at this time."

So it seems that the world must wait, and not a single further TLD will proceed, because ICANN is not up to the job of evaluating and launching further TLDs.

Everything has to be delayed because ICANN has not (after all this time) carried out its Evaluation Process, and does not have staff to do the work.

We are talking about a worldwide resource generating billions of pounds and vital for a huge range of social, health and educational resources.

Why is the development of this resource being delayed by a handful of people working from a few offices in a manner which is demonstrably amateur?

Why is the development of this resource being delayed by ICANN's admitted shortcomings?

Or are these delays further evidence of a deliberate strategy?

Richard Henderson

Although Sebastien Bachollet's report was scheduled for release this month (3 days left), he has announced to the Registrars today that the draft report will not now be published until the middle or end of January.

Further time will be needed before a final report is submitted.

His Evaluation team consists of Summit Strategies Intl. (Miriam Sapiro); Solucom (Michel Briche); with Sebastien Bachollet supervising.

Linked to the news that the ICANN Board believes the next TLDs should be postponed for resourcing reasons, this delay in the Evaluation Process simply adds to the case presented for inertia.

The key question now is: how detailed will the report be? Will it be so 'high-level' that the detail will be glossed over? Will people be able to submit statements to Sebastien in a due process? Will there be an interface?

At the Registrars' meeting today, Paul Twomey also stressed the importance he attaches to staffing - "these things should not be rushed," he said. "International searches are important".

Did he apply this scrutiny to the selection of the Evaluation team? Who else submitted applications for the contract?

Although Paul Twomey spoke quite incisively, and impressed me with his sharpness and presentation, he came across as a man under considerable pressure - faced with inadequate resources (and particularly staffing resources) to handle the urgent tasks which ICANN faces.

Consequently he talked about prioritising. It seems as if the Board does not regard the expansion of TLDs a first priority.

The postponement of TLDs... the domination of the market by Verisign... the surprise announcement that .name seems to be changing itself from a restricted domain to "another .com" selling generic domains and abandoning its limitation to personal names (obviously for financial reasons)...

This all smacks of an unravelling situation. I'm convinced that much of the problem boils down to ICANN's finances - whatever the reason, the world is being kept waiting for NewTLDs because ICANN can't keep up.

Richard Henderson

Hang on - since I last looked, the .info Registry Evaluation Report has been slotted onto the ICANN website, backdated to August 2002 (the date .info apparently submitted it to ICANN).

.info Appendix U report [icann.org]

I haven't had time to read it in detail, but it's been over a year coming, so I shall go and have a good malt whisky to celebrate!

I haven't had time to check if the .biz report has also been put up.

These reports were defined as essential to the Evaluation Process by the NTEPPTF, and we have waited far too long to get them, but the .info one is certainly there.

Of course, Afilias live in a parallel universe of spin, and they are unwilling to address the detailed abuse of process which even involved some of their own Directors. To quote their intro:

"The Sunrise Period and the Landrush Period were very successful and achieved the goals they set out to achieve."

Unbelievable!

... Richard Henderson

I understand from conversations in Carthage that .aero received its first questionnaire from Sebastien Bachollet 3 days ago so his New TLDs Evaluation Process is finally underway.

This is yet another delay of a process which has now been spun out for years. Note the schedule Sebastien himself offered here, promising to be finished by now:

Sebastien's 4th April Timetable [google.co.uk]

Bearing in mind that the NTEPPTF submitted its report in summer 2002, and the urgency of carrying out this evaluation, why are registries being approached now, at the end of October 2003, exactly when Sebastien promised his report would be published?

Richard Henderson

four years after MdR 2000

--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]