Carnage Of Cartagena. What Has Become Of The Three Major Issues Of The Meeting.

Posted January 5th, 2011

The Cartagena meeting yielded lukewarm results for those hoping to see ICANN move forward with the new gTLD program. Although for those who were a little less hopeful, it was business as usual. Decisions were delayed and generally not much happened save for some incredible alcohol fueled photos that showed up on Facebook.

Although one could hardly expect a decision to be made on the Proposed Applicant Guidebook, when the public comment period closes the same day as the board meeting, (If you’ve ever read an ICANN comment thread, no one of sound mind could expect that they would be read and considered in a day). The new delay may make the May 30, 2011 launch date impossible. As applications can’t begin to be submitted until ICANN has completed a four month outreach campaign following the publishing of the Final Version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, it looks like without the aid of a time machine, that launch date will come and go.

Although there is good news for those who still wish to comment on the PAG. ICANN as stated, “Comment deadlines have been pushed up “Taking into account public comment and decisions made during ICANN’s Cartagena meeting, the public comment period for the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook and supporting documentation have been extended to 15 January 2011 (1200 UTC).”

While residual squabbling among various interests in new gTLDs continues, the Internet community seems to be ready to find solutions to the elements of the DAG that are problematic. As Natalie Dreyfus explains on her blog, “According to ICANN’s Adopted Board Resolution of December 10, 201 0, public comments following the publication of the fifth Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) identified four “overarching issues” to be addressed as a threshold for moving forward with the introduction of new gTLDs: trademark protection, mitigating malicious conduct, root zone scaling and economic analysis.”

It would benefit no one to sweep these issues under the rug and move forward with so much unresolved. The more comfortable we are as a group, the better the end result of our years of effort spent on this program will be. New gTLDs will not happen in a vacuum, they will be the result of all interests coming together to further the scope of the Internet. And we do need each other to move forward. Peter Dengate Thrush said it best, quoted in a December 10 news release from ICANN, “It is imperative that the launch of new gTLDs be handled cautiously and thoughtfully, and that all voices are heard and considered”.

While New gTLDs were the most hotly anticipated issue of the meeting, IDNs and .XXX were also on the table. Below is an outline of the current state of the three most pressing issues of the Cartagena meeting.

IDNS

ICANN hosted an informal session on IDNs so registries could relate their experiences with launching, managing and transitioning IDNS. In light of information gathered, ICANN plans to release new technical guidelines for registries managing IDNs. While wildly successful for a roll out of new Internet technology, IDNs have their own specific concerns that range form language to language.

For example, an article by John Kane (click HERE for the full article) explains some of the challenges that were addressed during this session: “Some languages and scripts, such as Arabic, have multiple ways of expressing the same string of characters that typically represent a word. Therefore, speakers discussed issues with “bundling” domain registrations where two strings would have the same meaning to a native human speaker but are represented differently in Unicode. To give an English example, because the DNS is designed to be authoritative and unambiguous, it is akin to the question of whether color.com and colour.com should resolve to the same address.”

He also explains problems unique to Cyrillic: “At the ICANN session, Marina Nikerova of the .рф registry explained that the new Russian ccTLD did not experience any of these code point problems, as Cyrillic has only one script to work with, but said that usability remains a concern. The .рф domain has achieved broad browser support, she said, but search engines such as Google still frequently return ASCII domains first when users search for Cyrillic. She referenced an example of the word “известия”, which means “news” and is the name of a major Russian newspaper.”

In the GAC’s Communiqué following the Cartagena meeting, they expressed a different set of concerns for IDNs. The communiqué states “In addition, the GAC would like to discuss the need for an appropriate IDN policy in connection with the new gTLD program to take cultural diversity into consideration, consistent with the gTLD Principles (for example, the need for paired delegation for strings in some scripts).”

New gTLDs

In addition to the four overarching issues of trademark protection, mitigating malicious conduct, root zone scaling and economic analysis as part of their post Cartagena Communiqué, the GAC feels that the following issues also remain outstanding:

• The objection procedures including the requirements for Governments to pay fees;

• Procedures for the review of sensitive strings;

• Root Zone Scaling;

• Market and Economic Impacts;

• Registry – Registrar Separation;

• Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issues;

• Post-delegation disputes with governments;

• Use and protection of geographical names;

• Legal recourse for applicants;

• Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries;

• Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué; and

• The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names).

In theory, these issues shouldn’t be difficult to put to bed. Two and a half years of batting them back and forth and all of them have already been addressed in some capacity. Whether they will be settled by the February special meeting is another story. Expect to see some interesting developments in these areas in the coming weeks.

.XXX

It is bittersweet to see .XXX coming so close to moving forward. Without the hobby of speculating on something titillating that directly involves so few of us, where will we get our joy? Those of us who enjoy the boxing between the ICM Registry, ICANN and the Adult Community will have ringside seats a little longer as the ICANN board voted to postpone entering into a contract with ICM for the sponsored TLD.

With Free Speech Coalition (FSC) Executive Director Diane Duke and FSC Board Chair Jeffrey Douglas were in attendance at the meeting, lobbying against ICM’s application for .XXX this is not an issue that is going to be settled quietly.

Of this ever entertaining fray, Keiren McCarthy writes “In respect to the contentious issue of the possible approval of a dot-xxx top-level domain specifically for adult material, the Board and GAC have been slowly but determinedly moving toward a head-on crash.”

He continues, to quote Dengate Thrush,” We may be about to depart from GAC advice,” Dengate Thrush characterized the decision by the Board to say that it intended to sign a contract with the ICM Registry, the company behind dot-xxx, despite clear GAC reservations. “Maybe we can resolve the issues and maybe having gone through the process we can’t,” Dengate Thrush surmised. “Which is fine, provided we provide reasons as to why we do not follow the advice.”(For the full article, click HERE)

Dengate Thrush may have a point. ICM has been developing this idea for years and appears well prepared for the job of effectively running a .XXX extension.

According to xbiz.com, “If subsequently approved, ICM’s .XXX will bring with it a regulatory board, IFFOR (International Foundation for Online Responsibility) charged with developing “best practices” registrants would be required to follow. ICM refuses to disclose the names of those who agreed to serve on the board and develop policy for the .XXX online presence. Accordingly, the policies to which domain holders will be required to adhere have yet to be disclosed.

ICM Registry has promised a range of public interest benefits as part of its bid to operate the .xxx domain:

• Take appropriate measures to restrict access to illegal and offensive content;

• Support the development of tools and programs to protect vulnerable members of the community;

• Maintain accurate details of registrants and assist law enforcement agencies to identify and contact the owners of particular websites, if need be; and

• Act to ensure the protection of intellectual property and trademark rights, personal names, country names, names of historical, cultural and religious significance and names of geographic identifiers drawing on best practices in the development of registration and eligibility rules.” (Click HERE for the full article)

This has been an interesting case to follow particularly in light of these most recent board comments. ICM is well organized and for better or worse provides a current model for gTLD applicants. Whatever the outcome on this may be, it is going to set a precedent for the way new extensions move forward.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences, Events, gTLDS, ICANN, IDNs, Registries by Kelly Hardy