[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]There's a flurry of activity going on around ICANN, domains and new gTLDs at the moment.[/FONT]
First came a letter written by US congressmen and sent to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom on September 15. The letter can be summarised as a call to delay the introduction of new gTLDs and to see ICANN put under a permanent contract with the US government.
In passing, I cannot help but once again be flabbergasted by the US politician's apparent lack of regard for a) a policy development process that has been on-going for years (new gTLDs) and b) the fact that it's hard to consider the Internet as still being America's plaything these days, as opposed to a world resource.
But I digress. Rod Beckstrom wasted no time in responding to the Congress letter. On September 22, he penned a note of his own in which he addressed the points raised by the Congressmen in detail. Looking below the surface of Rod's letter, there are a few new elements with regards to the gTLD program that can be ascertained. For example, on whether ICANN intends to implement the IRT recommendations, Rod says that "ICANN may ask the GNSO to begin an expedited review of the recommended solutions". That in plain language seems to imply that we on the GNSO Council are going to have a whole plateful of new work thrown our way as ICANN looks to put the IRT recommendations back into its standard policy development process.
While Rod Beckstrom was tackling the US Congress, ICANN Chairman of the Board Peter Dengate Thrush was dealing with another group of politicians: the GAC. Governmental Advisory Committee chairman Janis Karklins had written to ICANN on August 18 to voice its concerns over elements of the new gTLD program.
Peter's letter in response, dated September 22, also provides insight into some of the avenues ICANN is currently looking at for the new gTLD program. One that caught my eye is a discussion of the possible categories that new gTLDs could fall into. Peter identifies the following possible TLDs: single owner, geographic, intergovernmental organisations, socio-cultural, community and open. But he makes it clear that categories would only be considered after the first application round.
All this correspondence is well worth a read to gauge the current mood around ICANN as a whole and new gTLDs in particular.
Pour en lire plus...
First came a letter written by US congressmen and sent to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom on September 15. The letter can be summarised as a call to delay the introduction of new gTLDs and to see ICANN put under a permanent contract with the US government.
In passing, I cannot help but once again be flabbergasted by the US politician's apparent lack of regard for a) a policy development process that has been on-going for years (new gTLDs) and b) the fact that it's hard to consider the Internet as still being America's plaything these days, as opposed to a world resource.
But I digress. Rod Beckstrom wasted no time in responding to the Congress letter. On September 22, he penned a note of his own in which he addressed the points raised by the Congressmen in detail. Looking below the surface of Rod's letter, there are a few new elements with regards to the gTLD program that can be ascertained. For example, on whether ICANN intends to implement the IRT recommendations, Rod says that "ICANN may ask the GNSO to begin an expedited review of the recommended solutions". That in plain language seems to imply that we on the GNSO Council are going to have a whole plateful of new work thrown our way as ICANN looks to put the IRT recommendations back into its standard policy development process.
While Rod Beckstrom was tackling the US Congress, ICANN Chairman of the Board Peter Dengate Thrush was dealing with another group of politicians: the GAC. Governmental Advisory Committee chairman Janis Karklins had written to ICANN on August 18 to voice its concerns over elements of the new gTLD program.
Peter's letter in response, dated September 22, also provides insight into some of the avenues ICANN is currently looking at for the new gTLD program. One that caught my eye is a discussion of the possible categories that new gTLDs could fall into. Peter identifies the following possible TLDs: single owner, geographic, intergovernmental organisations, socio-cultural, community and open. But he makes it clear that categories would only be considered after the first application round.
All this correspondence is well worth a read to gauge the current mood around ICANN as a whole and new gTLDs in particular.
Pour en lire plus...
