No Such Weblog

ICANN 2.0 is also going to come with a shiny new user interface.

Preview here; the new site is being showcased at the Carthage meeting. ICANN's webmistress is seeking comments.

Sebastian Bachollet speaks to the registrars' meeting. Has given presentations to different constituencies. Conducting interviews. 7 new gTLDs. 6 launched, .pro in the middle of the river. Address 12 questions; priority questions set up by NTEPPTF. Evaluation team: Summit Strategies Intl. (Miriam Sapiro); Solucom (?; Michel Briche); Bachollet supervising. Goal: Draft evaluation report at middle January / end January. Draft to TEAC (TLD Evaluation Advisory Committee); final report to TEAC around Rome meeting. Rough overview of questions. For some questions, input from registrars needed since they were between end customers and registry. Would like input about process with different new gTLDs. Difficulties faced? Technologies used by registries? Initial trademark protection? Startup issues? Implementation of registration restrictions? WHOIS and how it was implemented? Competition -- how did new gTLD change market, if at all? Effect on scope and competitiveness of domain name market? Effect on existing TLDs and registrants? Service continuity? Legal framework?

If anyone wants to be interviewed, please contact Bachollet.

Question: Evaluation process further delaying new gTLDs? SB: Question to board, can't answer that. Dan Halloran points out formal deadline from MoU -- September 2004.

Bachollet asks that r'ar constituency identify a small, but diverse set of registrars that might serve as interview partners.

Bruce Tonkin: Twomey response to sitefinder -- no documented procedure for dealing with new services. Special meeting of council. policy-development process; issues report requested by council. During meeting, Twomey and Jeffreys read letter that clarifies scope. Subtle wording.

Not just registry services as defined in contracts -- also other services that could have impact on internet stability. Not purely looking at registry services.

Other issue towards end of letter: Industry participants might be concerned because of competition issues. In end of Twomey letter, indicated that ICANN should seek external advice from competition authorities.

Barbara Roseman in charge of preparing issues report. Questions?

Elana Broitman: GNSO to look at definition of service or process? Tonkin: Early discussions with ICANN GC. Want to get away from what a service is, but rather look at impact and effect.

...

Process not about determining good service or not, but about impact on security and stability. GNSO developing process that staff applies on case-by-case basis. Q: Meet 15 January deadline? BT: probably not. But shouldn't take a year either. Miss 15 january by bit, not much. Q: Look at old requests? BT: Question to board, not to GNSO Council.

Barbara Roseman joins the meeting. Bruce Tonkin points out Twomey's broadly-worded core question. Barbara. Have talked to comm. user constituencies; will let GC figure out what's in scope for ICANN. Will go to outside entity asking about competition/confidentiality aspects; expertise available to GNSO.

Should new services or significant changes be reviewed before or after introduction?
Contract changes re stabililty/security?
Dominant vs. non-dominant registries? Comm. users had asked about differentiation between sponsored/non-sponsored?
Who should initiate process? Registry? Notification to ICANN, ICANN initiates? GNSO initiates? External party?
Desire to have definition of services provided?
Comm. users requested briefing what contracts say today.
Discussion ofo time frames? What time scales?
Involve other advisory bodies/SOs? Considerations from these overriding?
Concern about time frame for this PDP.
Time frame concerns?

Additional input from registrars?

Check or review for determination that something is registry service?
Review of anti-trust implications? Roseman: ICANN intends to make experts available.

Issues report will be posted CoB Friday, California time.

Add. questions: What's time table when service is not considered as registry service? "Registry service" covered by contract. But for non-registry service change, no contract requirement. Review of stability implications after the fact?

Tonkin: Add that issues report is starting point, not end point.

...

Suggestions to Barbara welcome, done by Friday.