The ICANN Board and the GAC met in Brussels for what was scheduled as a 2-day meeting but turned into a 3-day marathon on Feb 28, March 1 and 2.
The meeting was called in an attempt to resolve the remaining issues of contention between ICANN's decision-making body and the representatives of the world's governments on the subject of the new gTLD program. ICANN's bylaws state that if the GAC gives advice and if the Board, after having listened to that advice, is not ready to follow it, a formal consultation must take place in order to air the differences.
Brussels was not that meeting. It was a first step in the bylaws process. The consultation meeting has been scheduled for March 17, the day before the Board meeting that will bring ICANN San Francisco, the first of 2011's three International ICANN Meetings, to a close.
Brussels was an open meeting, but only GAC and Board members were allowed to speak. A limited number of other participants were allowed in as observers, and the Chairs of ICANN's Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees were also invited. I attended as Chair of the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO), ICANN's policy-making body for generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs).
In preparation for Brussels, the GAC had produced a "scorecard" of the main issues it still has with the proposed new gTLD program. This highlights 12 items where the GAC feels the ICANN Board has not followed its advice (in brackets, a summary of the GAC's complaints).
- The objection procedure and the requirements for governments to pay fees. (Requirements for gTLD applications to be judged under the grounds of morality and public order as defined by ICANN are not acceptable, nor is the idea that governments should pay to object to an application).
- Review of sensitive strings. (A request to give the GAC veto power over any application).
- Root zone scaling. (A request for monitoring systems to be implemented to ensure adding new gTLDs doesn't overload the Internet).
- Economic impact. (A request that applicants be required to explain the expected benefits of their new gTLD and that specific due diligence be carried out on community-based applications).
- Registry-registrar separation (A request for the Board to explain how it arrived at its decision to allow for full vertical integration of registries and registrars. Note this is NOT a request to overturn that decision).
- Protection of rights owners. (A request to refine the RP mechanisms being proposed under the new gTLD program).
- Post-delegation disputes. (A request for stronger contractual obligations for successful new gTLD applicants to conform to their contract after they have been awarded their TLD).
- Geographic names. (A series of requests for stronger protection to be afforded to geographic names).
- Legal recourse for applications. (A request to lift the contractual obligation that ICANN currently proposes to enforce and that would require an applicant to waive any possibility of legal recourse against ICANN).
- Developing countries. (A request that applicants from poorer countries not be excluded on grounds of the costs of application, language barriers, technical expertise or awareness of the program).
- Amend the RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) as recommended by the Law Enforcement Agencies. (A request to add criteria for disqualification of an applicant based on past criminal convictions; favour applications offering higher levels of security against potential malicious activities; add domestic screening of applicants; require that WHOIS data be kept accurate).
- Early warning system to applicants. (A request to inform applicants if a requested string is considered controversial or sensitive).
The Board used Brussels to ask the GAC clarifying questions about what it is they expect, then went away to grade the issues on the scorecard using 3 types of response:
1a means "we agree";
1b means "we agree in principle, but the GAC recommendation needs work";
2 means "we disagree".
The Board will now endeavour to publish their definitive grades of the GAC scorecard before the San Francisco meeting next week.
Both parties will then meet again on March 17 in San Francisco. However, the mood out of Brussels on the 3rd day of the meeting was not optimistic, with the GAC implying they would need more time.
ICANN had initially implied that if everything could be resolved at the March 17 meeting, the final version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook could be published in April.
If this is now looking less likely, the process is set to drag on past ICANN's second International Meeting of 2011 which is planned for Singapore in June.
