Date: Saturday March 16 2002, @07:47AM
Topic: New gTLDs

rfassett writes "Was there any update provided at the Accra meeting as to the status of this "Final Report"? I believe the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) request for community input on the "Interim Report" was posted in December - and with a sense of need and urgency for public input. I did not see a report from the NTEPPTF in February, supposedly after reviewing the comments it received by 1/15/02 deadline. I have seen nothing as a result of the recently completed meetings in Accra. In fact, just prior to the meeting this subject was on the agenda. Then, it was removed. Why? But, most importantly to me, how can a publicly released timeline from an authorized body become so out of whack in a matter of 4 months?"

Further, it is amazing to me how a moderately useful batch of new TLD's, mired in operational controversy, combined with sudden 'emergency topics' can take this particular subject completely off the ICANN priority list as if it were no longer of any immediate need of its attention, resources, or public disclosure. What an incredible change over about 18 months. Perhaps by design.

"11 Next Steps and Schedule

"Feedback from the community on this Interim Report is requested by January 15, 2002. Dependent on the nature of this feedback, the Task Force hopes to be able to complete its Final Report by the middle of February for community comment, and expects to submit this Final Report to the Board at the Board meeting in March in Accra."

Any of these diverse and knowledgeable group of members care to comment?:
Jaap Akkerhuis
Sebastien Bachollet
Marilyn S Cade
David R. Conrad
Michael Heltzer
Geoff Huston
Roberto Laorden
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
YJ Park

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
NTEPPTF | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday March 16 2002, @09:07AM (#5324)
User #2810 Info
Interesting points, Ray. It was discussed during the March 13 public forum, see about midway down the log. I reproduce it in edited form here, leaving M. Stuart Lynn's comments intact:

Stuart Lynn: [New TLD Evaluation Process Planning TF/NTEPPTF presentation]

Meeting in Accra, large exchange with representatives of new gTLDs
Action plan up to the ICANN meeting in June
Final report -- we are late
Final report in June
Personal comment: Have to find way forward. Evaluation can take a long time until conclusions reached.
In the interim, community needs to give thoughts on how to go forward.

Vinton Cerf: Did differences in gTLD types make finding criteria harder?

Stuart Lynn: Have already grouped in different categories.

And that was about it, though a little later during the Public Microphone time David Short of the IATA had a few mild things to say about the unsuccessful .travel application.

So, tune in in June, assuming that one still can, and see if they've gotten anything else done besides their coup d'etat.

I am similarily nonplussed about how they could put off the Redemption Grace Period for another meeting (they didn't even specify the next one, just a later one), whilst apparently allowing Veri$ign to continue on with its WLS proposal. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday March 16 2002, @07:18PM (#5330)
User #2810 Info
Having now sat through the relevant parts of the March 13 Public Forum again via the archive here, the discussion on New TLD evaluations begins at approximately 05:33:00 and continues to 05:40:00. Alexander's log didn't miss much, other than M. Stuart Lynn claiming responsibility for much of the delay (one assumes because he had a plan to work on). It is actually worth watching from 05:21:00 when Ram Mohan of Afilias reports on .info Sunrise problems, as that is likely to be part of the evaluation. On the latter, I expect that any future Sunrises will check TM data in advance, not after the fact (it was exceedingly stupid of the ICANN staff to OK that), and I predict trademark holders will be charged considerably more to cover the cost. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
by RFassett on Monday March 18 2002, @06:46AM (#5354)
User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
look, if there is any relationship between the NTEPPTF article I posted and this specific comment thread, it is that hundreds of gTLD's would certainly go a long way to reducing the scarcity of any particular unique string at the second level.

In a round-a-bout way, I appreciate this point being made. Whether this is an artificial scarcity or one of reality (for reasons of technical stability), is what I thought the NTEPPTF was assigned to help find out, based upon a stated and thought-out timeline.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday March 18 2002, @06:52AM (#5355)
User #2810 Info
Anon writes:
So what do you say to the guy who received confirmation, from his registrar, that he successfully registered enum.info, only to have it taken away by Ray Fasset.
I'd say:

1. Prove your (and, if he's a different person, his) allegations.

2. Assuming such evidence exists, sue the registrar.

3. Assuming there is also evidence that Ray Fassett somehow had something to do with you/him losing the name, sue Ray Fassett.

4. If you/he can't manage 1. here at least, don't expect anyone to take your anonymous allegations seriously. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re: NTEPPTF by fnord Monday March 18 2002, @07:45AM
    • Re: NTEPPTF by fnord Monday March 18 2002, @09:10AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: