Today, in a presentation made to attendees of the McCarthy Institute Symposium, Peter Dengate Thrush, ICANN Chair, announced that the Final New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Applicant Guidebook would be completed after the ICANN Meeting in Amman, Jordan which is scheduled for June 19 - 24, 2011.
Given this new schedule, the earliest the application period could conceivably begin would be late October / early November, assuming that the requirement for a four-month communication period is still required.
Even with the many delays, companies should continue to move down a path of due diligence to determine the right approach — whether it's to focus solely on defensive measures or to apply for a custom TLD.
By Elisa Cooper, Director of Product Marketing at MarkMonitor. Elisa Cooper also contributes to the MarkMonitor weblog located here.
Related topics: ICANN, Top-Level Domains
To post comments, please login or create an account.
IPv6Sponsored byNominum | |
Top-Level DomainsSponsored byMinds + Machines | |
DNSSponsored byNeustar UltraDNS | |
SecuritySponsored byVerisign | |
MobileSponsored bydotMobi | |
DNS SecuritySponsored byAfilias |
Elisa,
I don't read that in anything that Peter has said. Can you point us to where he has stated this explicitly? I am of the belief that it will be finalised in San Francisco and voted on by the Board shortly thereafter via teleconference. There will be no need to wait until the Jordan meeting…
It would be my hope also that the communications period could start immediately after the San Francisco meeting and with the finalisation of the guidebook occurring after this.
Peter made these comments yesterday at the McCarthy Institute Symposium.
Also, I believe that ICANN has clearly stated that the program must be finalized before the communication period can begin. A previously released timeline also shows this to be the case.
I suppose it’s possible that ICANN could change their stance on this, but I don’t think it’s likely.
Which comments specifically? You don't quote him in your post. He never mentioned Jordon. He just said, "not San Francisco", that it my point.
This *could* be the first time that the IP lawyers can be accused of wishful thinking when it comes to the gTLD timeline.
If so, it would be a portentous flipping of traditional roles in this drawn-out game of chicken.
Kieren