-
Blogs
-
News
-
Industry
-
Community
-
Topics
ICANN had previously given the domain the go ahead in 2005, but reversed the decision two years later amidst protests from US conservative groups. An independent review recently concluded that decision was unfair and that the plan should be reconsidered.
Read full story: BBC
Related topics: Domain Names, ICANN, Internet Governance, Top-Level Domains
To post comments, please login or create an account.
By this point, six years into the story of ICM and the .XXX sTLD, there is likely no process that has not been used to delay a decision well-made the first time. To suggest that there is little precedent for awarding an extension “six years following receipt of original application” is to ignore the fact that it was awarded in 2005. Since then ICANN has been blown from shore-to-shore by political winds and its own unwillingness to tack on behalf of its constituencies. The registry ought to be granted and up-and-running as soon as is technically possible.
To delay further is to undercut the recommendations from a robust panel of experts, appointed by ICANN itself. Bereft of additional tactics, ICANN now falls back on the need to gather “public opinion” on how next to proceed. If you ask for input but never hear it, have you really asked for it in the first place? ICANN established the IRP process to create a mechanism through which resolution (one way or the other) was assured. But it seems the IRP Declaration is not what ICANN had hoped for, so now new processes must be invented.
There have been opinions on many sides of this issue from the beginning. Unable to find unanimous consent, ICANN either seems to want to stall ICM, hoping it will withdraw, or hope the weight of opposition will seem like consensus and allow the application be denied. I suspect that if the majority of opinion expressed here favours ICM’s application, there will be a call for even more review. This is more obscene than any sTLD could be.
The simple facts are: ICMs original application met all of the required criteria at the time. Despite that, ICANN chose to manage the ICM application differently than all others received. Subsequently, an independent panel appointed by ICANN themselves upheld the notion that the original application was valid and should move forward. So why the continued analysis? Why is ICANN not following and accepting their own policies and procedures?
Delay does not strengthen ICANN’s hand, it diminishes its standing. Accept the IRP Declaration.