ICANN's Latest Report to DoC (and sTLD applicants)
Date: Thursday April 08 2004, @07:04PM
Topic: sTLDs hoping to enter legacy root

cambler writes "ICANN has made available its latest status report to the DoC. I'll give it a more thorough read, but one thing stands out to me on my first skim:

ICANN is currently soliciting public comments on the applications. All applicants that are found to satisfy the posted criteria will be eligible to enter into technical and commercial negotiations with ICANN for agreements for the allocation and sponsorship of the requested TLDs.

Emphasis mine. This reads to me to mean that ICANN has put forth a reasonably-objective set of criteria, and if you meet them, you get to move on. Sure, the evaluators might subjectively evaluate those criteria, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that the evaluation will be objective and fair, it sure looks to me like ICANN has implemented a reasonable gating function.

This could even carry forward to the next round, which one would presume would address the applications still pending from November of 2000. ICANN could enumerate criteria, applicants still wishing to be approved could update their (presumably partially-out-of-date) applications, and the gating function be run.

The only question then (as now, with the sTLD applications) would be in what order the negotiations take place. Honestly, that's not nearly as contentious an issue as approval in general.

Color me cautiously optimistic!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
ICANN's Latest Report to DoC (and sTLD applicants) | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 34 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 KarlAuerbach on Friday April 09 2004, @02:50PM (#13335)
User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
Why in the world should there be "negotiations" after a TLD is accepted?

ICANN should be simply saying "OK, you pass the objective standards". (And those objective standards should truely be objective, and they should pertain to technical capabilities only.)

Post selection negotions suggests that the obligations (and tolls) to be levied on the winner are yet to be established. That is wrong.

There should be fixed obligations - much as there is for a driver's license - and nothing more.

Tailor made contracts can be a way to disguise the imposition of additional requirements.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
by cambler (chris@ambler.net) on Saturday April 10 2004, @08:55AM (#13341)
User #36 Info | http://onthenet.ambler.net/
Wow, I love the anonymous posts trying to badmouth the application just because I helped on it. I'm so glad to see that the ad hominem attack is still alive and well, and practiced by cowards who are afraid to own their words.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:.Mail by cambler Sunday April 11 2004, @05:25PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:The real .MAIL application ? from Mr. .WEB ?
by cambler (chris@ambler.net) on Saturday April 10 2004, @08:59AM (#13342)
User #36 Info | http://onthenet.ambler.net/
I'm sure that those .Web customers I've talked to are pleased that I am staying involved in the process and trying to help make it as streamlined and objective as possible.

Or were you just looking for an argument, but too afraid to use your real name for the post?

Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:eNOM and .WEB ?
by Tom Occhipinti on Monday April 12 2004, @07:38AM (#13355)
User #3725 Info
I doubt he wants to hide his affiliation with eNom and the .mail TLD, given that his name appears on the .mail TLD and given that he cites eNom on his resume over at resume.ambler.net.

Regarding your assertion that Ambler recommend to eNom that they promote .web -- You do realize, of course, that it would be futile as the current round is for restricted, sponsored TLDs. .Web remains an un-restricted, un-sponsored gTLD and the round of applications in which it will participate has not yet commenced.

This is all rather public information.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: