More time to weigh in on new top level domain name plan.
ICANN frequently extends the deadline to submit public comments on both major and minor issues. But this is done prior to the comment period ending to give people more time to consider how they want to weigh in.
A number of people requested additional time to comment on the proposed Final Applicant Guidebook for new TLDs but were rebuffed and the comment period ended a week ago.
Now it has risen from the dead. Today ICANN decided to extend the public comment period to January 15.
I suppose some additional worthwhile comments will be generated based on what transpired last Friday at the ICANN board meeting. But those people who rushed to get (perhaps subpar) comments in by last Friday won’t get that time back.
gpmgroup says
It would be nice to see the rational behind the Board’s 180 degree shift of position on VI/VS before the comment period ends.
Given the pretty damming dissent of the Boards decision from George Sadowsky, there must be some very strong reasoning.
M. Menius says
Extending the comment period is good. More importantly, there is already a volume of excellent commentary & insight dating back two years … from corporations around the world.
Have ICANN really read those comments? And assimilated the world’s feedback & clearly expressed preferences regarding new gtld’s? Sometimes it feels like their solicitation of comments is mostly for show (or to just temporarily placate dissent).
As has been repeatedly recommended, why not release a limited number of new tld’s, examine the market response, smooth out any emergent problems, and then evaluate the need & feasibility of additional tld’s moving forward?
This is a superior approach, safer, and arguably defensible … when compared to an “unlimited” (500 in first year?) method which leaves you shaking your head at the potential repercussions.
Louise says
Thanx for heads-up! Do you think ICANN is getting nervous for being called out on posting invitations to comment over holiday periods and vacation times? Thereby employing sneaky methods to pass policies it wants to slide through? Methinks it is!
The language in WIPO’s feedback on the new gTLD was music to my ears:
“Regrettably, our preliminary review of the Guidebook confirms our previous observation that ICANN’s determinations rely principally on an institutionalized framework of committees and processes STATED to cover the views of BROADER COMMUNITIES, but APPEAR SYNCHRONIZED with REGISTRATION PURPOSES . . . REGISTRATION-DRIVEN COMPROMISE risks impacting the effectiveness and efficiency of the URS [Uniform Rapid Suspension] to the point of missing the fundamental intent behind the WIPO and IRT proposals.”
– http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-base/pdfpLuMyAgvPd.pdf [caps mine]
“Registration-driven compromise” – you couldn’t have said it any better, Erik Wilbers! Thank you thank you thank you! 🙂
Philip Corwin says
@Louise
WIPO’s performance throughout the new gTLD debate has demonstrated that it is an unabashed advocate for trademark interests (it doesn’t even bother to feign neutrality) and is generally contemptuous of ICANN’s consensus-driven policy-making process.
This is rather extraordinary behavior for an organization that has been accredited by ICANN to administer UDRP disputes, as the primary criteria for any provider of alternative dispute resolution services is that both it and the neutrals (arbitrators/mediators) it selects be unbiased.
The American Arbitration Association/International Center for Dispute Resolution emphasizes the steps it takes to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. And the American Bar Association’s Best Practices for Online Dispute Resolution requires providers to disclose all matters that might raise any reasonable questions about their impartiality. WIPO, for its part, doesn’t even pretend to be impartial.
The current Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in the proposed Final Applicant Guidebook are the result of, WIPO’s derogatory comments notwithstanding, a very substantive dialogue within the STI-RT that was unanimously adopted by the GNSO, ICANN’s policy-making body. Its deliberations took the legitimate due process rights of registrants into account, which apparently is a matter of great offense to WIPO. Further, some of WIPO’s criticisms in its December 2nd letter make no sense — for example, criticizing the URS for having a higher burden of proof than a UDRP action, when this higher standard reflects the original proposal put forth by the trademark interest-dominated IRT.
WIPO is of course fully entitled to be an unabashed advocate for trademark interests. But such clear and consistent bias would disqualify it from overseeing an arbitration process under any relevant code of ethics, and raises serious questions about its continued involvement with administration of the UDRP. At a minimum, ICANN would be well advised to adopt the IRT’s suggestion that the URS be administered by an entirely new organization, as well as the STI-RT’s recommendation that any URS providers be placed under binding agreement with ICANN.
Louise says
Right before I saw your response – thanx for taking the time! – I commented on Howard Neu’s post, JUDGE DISMISSES CASE AGAINST 1800CONTACTS COMPETITOR WHO BOUGHT TRADEMARKED KEYWORD: “It’s Google’s policy, but it’s wrong. I’m against it,” with regard to allowing trademark advertising. The major decision you use to justify trademark advertising and using trademark in domain names, I am against. It feels like the fall of the Roman Empire. That thing just collapsed on itself.
Show me where ICANN implements “bottom-up” policy of taking into consideration comments of constituents! Five comments were unanimous that 15 days is too short notice for Verisign’s BTAPPA of dot com and dot net, yet it passed as is. The people opposed to rapid introduction of new gTLDs have voiced their concerns since years, since the concept was first bandied about, also WIPO. Every reasonable suggestion get ignored, like introducing them gradually in a tiered manner, to allow observation. What is unreasonable about that? Now, people are complaining about the reduction of time to respond to UDPR complaint, from 20 days to 14 days. Will that be ignored as well? It seeems reasonable to allow to keep the time 21 days FROM THE DATE THAT THE CURRIER SVC GUARANTEES delivery, or it was signed. In view of ICANN’s predictableness, there is room for aggession on WIPO’s part.
WIPO better represents the interest of the most vulnerable constituent: the small business, or developer, or Small Emerging Business, someone like me. It would ruin me, if I developed a small idea, registered a domain, applied for trademark, and then everybody and his brother could capitalize off of the name! In that instance, I would appreciate protection WIPO promotes.
Thanx for participating in ICANN workshops. You’re a volunteer like Michael Conner, right? I respect the hard work you put. 🙂