The EoI did not pass, but the silver lining in it all is that it proved that the community could raise up a proposal to the board using the Bottom-Up approach.

I am grateful. I have a well honed ability to find acceptance in things that I don't agree with. I hate the outcome but I would do it all again.

The many stakeholders and applicants who had been trusting dates and time lines that they had been provided in all meetings between the Paris meeting in June 2008 and the Sydney meeting in 2009, and had been growing businesses and reaching out to communities, carrying the message of ICANN and the promise of new TLDs.

These companies, individuals, volunteers, consultants, they all planned their lives, budgets, marketing, and jobs around the time lines that had been coming from ICANN. Sure, delays and adjustments meant the embarrassment of repeatedly revising and communicating new time lines to their clients, shareholders, boards of directors, communities.

And then came the Seoul ICANN meeting. Rather than get the schedule in place and stop the sliding dates and the embarrassment that they were causing ICANN and the interested stakeholders, ICANN instead opted to clam up about dates and time lines.

This not only completely undermined their own credibility; it froze financial support for new TLD applicants of every shape and size and eliminated institutional confidence in ICANN and its new TLD program.

And in that choice to coward away from communicating dates, ICANN really created the EoI. All I did is channel the contempt, cynicism and abject frustrations of the various community members who had timelines pulled out from under them in the Seoul meeting, working to turn that passion into productive effort. So you could say ICANN was the catalyst.

I am grateful that I had the influence, respect and trust from stakeholders to have pulled so many parties together to collaborate and support an initiative which tested ICANN's 'Bottom-up Process'. And I had the privilege of presenting the concept of an expressions of interest process as a way to keep the new TLD program on pace while removing pressure from the staff and board for evaporating the foundations out from under supporters and believers in the new TLD program at the Seoul meeting.

I cannot take full credit for the Expressions of Interest, it came from a number of people in the community, from a number of various stakeholders who did not want to see the momentum die from ICANNs opting at redacting and retracting communication of dates and timelines.

I just had tenacity to be a spokesperson for a large group of stakeholders in the Seoul meeting but could not at all take all of the credit for the EoI. It was humbling to read through the transcript from the public meeting as I notice the many, many supporters who I consider to be leaders in the community who stepped up after I did in support of the proposal at the public meeting.

It was really just a sensible approach of decoupling the application process from the review, assignment and delegation stages of the new TLD program that we had seen originate from the GAC. I explained that the catalyst was the outright elimination of discussion of dates in Seoul, and that I'd chosen to do something positive and constructive rather than give in to the growing cynicism in the applicant pool.

After gathering many in diverse parts of the community and stakeholder groups to provide a draft document to ICANN that contained a number of concepts and submitting it in the comment period that followed the Seoul board resolution, ICANN staff drafted a proposal for an Expression of Interest process and put it out to the community to comment on.

The community rose up to support or not support the overall concept. Not everyone liked every aspect of it, some loved it outright, and many (especially brands who are fighting with their last breath to oppose the new TLDs but ironically are preparing applications and will apply once they can) sought to quash it.

Ultimately it came down to transparency being the root of its demise. Many brands did not want the double-standard of their position on new TLDs exposed, and fears by governments that a public morality issue would creep in with .f-bomb holding up the whole process, because all strings would be released.

It took reverse psychology and intense lobbying in Nairobi for those who wanted EoI their way or no-way, and those people got what they wanted.

I disagree with the board's decision, but the board was requested to pass or fail the EoI and they failed it opting to allegedly continue the momentum of the new TLD program. Using the Paris meeting announcements that stemmed from the board votes to open up the new TLD program in 2008, things had been progressing along until 'overarching issues' got thrown in front of the process, injecting delays.

I am getting a lot of feedback from within the community that there is deep disappointment and outrage falling out of the board decisions. And I am seeing a lot of people still bracing for the tsunami effect from the EoI being voted into oblivion in the tragic events of 3-12 (The ICANN Board decided to withdraw the Expressions of Interest among other decisions).

We'll see some startups pare down their staff and marketing budgets, other participants will close down entirely or completely move their focus. Make no mistake, jobs were lost as a result of the board's decision to fail the EoI.

I am already witnessing gloating by those interested in delaying the introduction of new TLDs who won a small victory for the status quo amidst the zebras and hippos in Narobi. These are not people who ponder the consequences or outcomes, they only relish victories.

Candidly, I was shocked the EoI did not pass. It essentially was just a time honored technique used in intelligent project management to reduce the ambiguity and theoretical concerns and operate in tandem with the solutions to some of the thorny issues that were open. It had every opportunity to thrive and provide benefit to ICANN, to the applicants, to the communities, investors, to the process itself.

There was an opportunity to make the new TLD program real again after Seoul. In Seoul the new TLD program was converted into vaporous concept with hazy, slippery deadlines that have anyone that follows them met with laughter and doubt when presenting timeline estimates.

Apparently the community had really gotten quite a bit of momentum with the Expressions of Interest concept. It looked like it had some promise. Many elements of the concept were attractive and productive.

But the takeaway and probably the most important thing that happened was that the community rose to present an idea, that the board heard that message, and that it even became something to be voted upon at all.

While I watch many of the investors and communities that were in strong support of the new TLD program wither or hibernate in a process that kills jobs during a weak global economy as a result of the March 12th board votes, I remain optimistic that the new TLD program will continue and we'll see those who had the intestinal fortitude and capable war chests ride out the storm of perpetual delay.

And I would do it all over.

I have not lost my faith in the community. I hope the community has not lost faith in ICANN, and I would encourage the community not to become stoic when their efforts appear for naught like we were shown.

My heart goes out to those who have families to feed that were impacted by the decisions the board made.

Written by Jothan Frakes, Chief Operations Officer at Minds + Machines

As the original founder of DNS-OARC (that's the Operations, Analysis, and Research Center for DNS, on the web at WWW.DNS-OARC.NET / see related CircleID interview), I've fielded a lot of questions from folks asking me what I think about all this. The original DNS-OARC plan (written in 2002 or so) called for a 24x7 monitoring and response and coordination function very similar to what's now being proposed by ICANN. Everybody I talked to in 2002 understood the need for this, based on the excellent track record of US-CERT and JP-CERT and even the IT-ISAC. We knew it had to be done by the DNS industry itself, rather than added to the remit of some existing government-supported CERT or ISAC.

Somewhere along the way we got distracted. Or to more accurately place the blame, I got distracted. DNS-OARC was a huge undertaking, and one that I significantly underestimated.  Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) started DNS-OARC using NSF research money, and I think NSF was happy with our results—but producing those results used up a lot of ISC's management bandwidth. DNS-OARC has received unprecedented participation and support from members of the DNS industry, who had never done anything quite like this—but the cycle time for bringing in new members was six to 18 months rather than the six to 18 weeks I planned on. Much has been achieved, but building the data and resources needed to develop OARC's necessary "critical mass" was something that ISC had to rely on partners and members for, and those folks have busy lives and long to-do lists even without this kind of stuff.

Eight years on, ISC has successfully spun DNS-OARC out as a separate non-profit corporation with its own board of directors. DNS-OARC has some fifty (50) members, comprising an unprecedented community of the key technical people from major DNS TLD registries, root operators, vendors and service providers. It has created a set of tools, experience and infrastructure vital for monitoring and analyzing the health of the DNS, and has accumulated an unparalleled set of DNS data captured from the live Internet.

But all this took years longer than I expected, and may have been a more dramatic time investment than DNS-OARC's elected trustees were expecting.

So the reason there is nothing like a "DNS CERT" in the world today is that I, as the founder of DNS-OARC, said that DNS-OARC would handle it, and then I didn't follow through. I plead ignorance and ambition—we got a lot of other great stuff done, including the existence and independence of DNS-OARC itself, so I'm not exactly weeping with guilt. But, when Rod Beckstrom (President of ICANN) got up at the microphone in Nairobi and said, the world needs something like this, and if nobody else is going to build it, he would, I thought, he's absolutely right, it's still 2002 in here, and it's time we—the DNS industry—got this done. We need a 24x7 monitoring and response and coordination function, with full time analysts looking at real time DNS events and participating in a global mesh of DNS NOCs.

Beckstrom's vision that some $4.5M is needed to get DNS-CERT properly off the ground is to be commended, and is one familiar to us at DNS-OARC, where our reach has regularly exceeded our grasp. But we've also learned some lessons over the years, not least that the DNS community guards its autonomy fiercely, and will react adversely to anything that smacks to them of unilaterally imposed central control. Something like a DNS-CERT can only be done at the grass roots level, which is both a constraint and a boon. This explains some of what we've been hearing in the hallways at how, despite its merits, there is some disquiet about the way the DNS-CERT proposal was presented. It is exactly why we went for an autonomous, neutral, membership governance model for DNS-OARC. We have to work cooperatively to ensure that DNS remains 100% available to serve as the Internet's map.

I call upon the world's governments, and upon the gTLD and ccTLD operators, and upon ICANN itself as well as other Internet governance organizations including CENTR, to support DNS-OARC Inc. in finishing what I started; and I call upon DNS-OARC Inc.'s trustees and members to use ICANN's excellent "gap analysis" for the "DNS-CERT" as the starting point to make this happen.

So, the next phone call all of those folks get may be from me, making this appeal personally. Let's make 2010 the year we (all) finally get this done.

Written by Paul Vixie, President, Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

Until now, in public, large brands have marched in lock step in opposition to new top-level domains, ostensibly because of the high cost of defending and enforcing their marks in multiple new namespaces. The worst-kept secret in the industry, however, is that brands have been making private plans, and brand-service registrars have been prepping their clients for new gTLDs in anticipation of healthy fees for application submission services.

Canon, at least, has decided that the marketing benefits of their own top-level domain outweigh the costs. In the U.S., legal departments, which are good at identifying risk—though not necessarily expert at quantifying it—, exercise a much stronger presence in the corporate boardroom than they do in European and Asian companies.

Could it be that the highly defensive stance of U.S. intellectual property interests, hardened by the file-sharing wars, is not shared by the rest of the world's brands?

In Japan, Canon has decided to cast its lot with the money-makers instead of the money-hoarders. I predict we will see more brands opt for engagement with the Internet by visibly branding themselves with their own new gTLD, but that the the last ones to do so will come from the United States.

Written by Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines

As proposed by ICANN staff, the EOI model would have required that all entities wishing to apply for a new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) during the first round to submit basic information including the requested string and a fee of $55,000.

However, much to the collective surprise of the ICANN community, the ICANN Board voted against the proposal, citing many of the reasons noted in the comments submitted by MarkMonitor.

Members of the ICANN Board stated that confusion regarding the purpose of the model existed, and that moving forward with such a model would have added another two to three months to the process. Furthermore, that resources were being taken away from solving the "underlying problems” was also cited as a reason to vote against the model.

While the EOI was expected to provide exact information about the number of applicants expected in the first round, one of the Board Members stated that having this "extraordinary precision" was not necessary due to the fact that the "Internet is a—as a system, exhibits enormous dynamic ranges in load in every aspect."

Interestingly enough, another Board Members stated that at the beginning of the week that he had planned to vote in favor of the EOI, but by the end of the week it had become apparent that a mandatory EOI did not have the consensus of the community.

With this result, brand rights owners and others will be able to keep their plans confidential until they are ready to apply and prepare for the application or objection process, without additional worries or early investment in the gTLD process.

So, it is without any sorrow or regret, I say RIP EOI.

Written by Elisa Cooper, Director of Product Marketing at MarkMonitor

With our framework of protection for the registrant, we support the various language communities in growing and evolving the use of our IDN top level domains in a way that is most appropriate for them. We are also looking to the community to develop their language script table—a necessary element in the deployment of IDNs—which ultimately determines the most appropriate use of their language script for domain name labeling purposes.

We believe that our community-based approach to developing and deploying IDNs will best serve the public interest of the various language communities, and we look forward to ICANN's upcoming introduction of new top level domains.

Our approach was recently discussed in an interview with Domain Name Wire.

#1 – ICANN Board Approves the EOI

Kristina Rosette, GNSO Counsel representative highlighted how ICANN had already announced a webinar on March 18th to talk about the new gTLD process and the EOI/Pre-Reservation process. Now while ICANN staff promptly edited this page after Kristina's statement in the public forum, to include the following disclaimer (SUBJECT TO BOARD DECISION), this appears to be preordained based on the additional facts listed below.

#2 – Launch of the Global Communication Plan

The Seoul meeting was interesting as it was one of the first ICANN meetings were there was an absence of artificial timelines in connection with the launch of the new gTLD process. This meeting was also largely absent of timelines, expect for those attendees that managed to sit in on the new gTLD staff briefing given by Kurt Pritz to the Registrar Stakeholder Group. While the first slides in Kurt's presentation where almost identical to the other public presentations, the last two saw the re-emergence of project times. These slides were entitled "Applicant Guidebook V4—Shortest Path" and "Expression of Interest (EOI)—Shortest Path." While this power point presentation given to the registrars is not currently available on the ICANN website, I am sure that within minutes of this article being published it will timely appear on the ICANN website much like the update to the March 18th webinar.

#3 – Approval of the ICM Application

Today on the ICANN correspondence website there appears a private and confidential communication submitted by ICM to ICANN to settle its dispute. Given that this "private and confidential" communication is now public is a reasonable indicator that ICANN will accept the offer. The only suspense is if ICANN approves the last 2007 registry contract posted for public comment, or if it re-opens contractual negotiations. Given that re-opening negotiations would subject ICANN to intense lobbying from certain stakeholder groups that feel rather passionately about this subject and how this might distract staff from its Brussels' deliverables, it is a safe bet to predict that ICANN just bites the bullet and executes the 2007 agreement.

Shock and Awe

Regardless of what actions the ICANN Board takes tomorrow it will be criticized. Therefore, given the new style leadership demonstrated by ICANN President and CEO, Rod Beckstrom and Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush, I predict ICANN goes 'all in." While it may take several years to determine whether the ICANN Board made the right decision in Nairobi, this much is guaranteed for sure, ICANN's actions represent a global economic stimulus plan for attorneys of epic portions that will be paying dividends for year to come. Let the fun begin, and let the chips fall where they may.

Written by Michael D. Palage, Adjunct Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation

ICANN Nairobi carries serious expectations by the community of the ICANN Board to stand up and be counted. On the card are the .XXX fiasco, The Expression of Interest, which I and others have called the expression of "Special" Interest as well as on the New gTLDs implementation which is still littered with many unresolved overarching concerns, and not forgetting the Review mechanisms to oversee ICANN performance per the Affirmation of commitments, which may end up being loaded up with ICANN loyalists.

However, this Thursday and this Friday are unlike any of the previous years. They represent crossroads in ICANN's path that will determine its credibility that will shape its role and influence for years to come under the Beckstrom / Dungate Thrush leaderships. The resolutions ICANN do adopt this Friday or if it chooses to defer decisions on some instead of addressing them squarely will either boost ICANN's credibility or damage them irreparably.

By Friday 12pm Nairobi time we all should know if the ICANN board and its leadership possess the wisdom and far sightedness of a Solomon or a Joe Blog. Whether they are up to the task, challenge and responsibility bestowed on them by the Affirmation of commitments to rule over the entire global internet will also be known. By noon we will know if they have exhibited the needed leadership, diplomatic, and executive skills and the sincerity to show they can rule over the global internet in a fair, equitable and ubiquitous manner to all its stakeholders from Akron to Afghanistan, from DC to Damascus, from Beijing to Bangalore, delivering on its Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) mandate of ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of all global Internet users as well as promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.

Most important and most compelling of all other issues in Nairobi is .XXX . No matter how the board acts ICANN's credibility will be impacted. If the board instructs staff to execute the 2007 registry contract with ICM, ICANN indirectly admits it was wrong and creates a precedent that its board decisions will be questioned endlessly and can be reversed by an Independent Review panels in the future. If the board chooses not to instruct staff to execute the 2007 contract, it raises serious concerns over the seriousness of the AOC and the review mechanisms over ICANN and the New gTLDs. The board may defer some decisions to a later date citing some excuse in order to gauge a better result and prospect.

But this raises new questions I don't hear much in the ICANN corridors:

A – Does or doesn't ICANN consider itself as a "Global Public Service Provider" ?
B – Isn't ICANN a" Global Monopoly Public Service Provider?
C – As per the AOC, what if ICANN is seen to have failed based on the AOC review panelists?
D – What happens next?

In a competitive market if I am a customer of AT&T and they fail me I switch to sprint or Verizon, it is also called consumer choice. But where is the choice in the ICANN role and what happens if ICANN does fails. Does the community issue statements and press releases calling on ICANN once again to improve it like we have the last ten years. This is hardly choice or competition. ICANN needs to remember the difference between the internet world dealing with it because it respects it and sees it providing a great service as a global monopoly Versus being the only game in town ( the world actually). If ICANN was a service provider in a competitive market, I wonder how many would continue using the ICANN service based on its current levels of "Constituents Satisfaction" if another one can serve them better, faster, and cheaper. Are Google or Microsoft listening, or should ITU the only one aiming at this role?

Other bloggers / friends who are dissatisfied with ICANN wrote and what I add.

Jonathan Zuck: "But when the Chairman backed away from that stance earlier this week in Nairobi, it became clear that we should have held our breath a little bit longer".

I say to Jonathan: Stop holding your breath, no human can keep their breath that long, how long have the IDN communities been waiting for IDN gTLDs. ICANN's rational show a clear monopolistic style of management that knows there is nowhere for you to go and get the service you seek of ICANN anywhere else. Welcome to ICANN style of competition and choice.

Andrew Mack: "A Little Flexibility from ICANN and We Might Just Get IDNs… for Everyone"

I say to Andrew: The little flexibility you hope for in ICANN is like the short distance that appears between stars when you look up to the night sky. In reality these stars are light years apart. And so is ICANN on IDNs for everyone, I can speak on this matter as an expert on IDNs who has served on the ICANN President Advisory Committee on IDNs since its inception in 2005.

I will post my verdict after Friday 12pm Nairobi Time.

Written by Khaled Fattal, Chairman and CEO

ICM has no interest in being fobbed off with an invitation to join the new gTLD application process. That process is horribly delayed, of still uncertain timing and outcome, and would expose ICM to immediate competition from other porn-related TLDs. ICM has assiduously played by the rules and understandably does not wish to go to the back of the queue.

This could go one of two ways. First and most likely, the Board will fulfill its legal obligation to consider the panel's decision by having, and being seen to have at its public meeting on Friday, a discussion of the ruling. Then, perhaps regretfully, it will punt on any action by adopting some sort of delaying mechanism. One way to buy time and maybe even some credibility would be for the Board to put the 2007 registry contract with ICM out for another round of public comment. ICM says it will take legal action if there's any delay, though this might be hard to justify if it's 'just one more' round of public comment.

The second possibility is that the Board simply directs staff to execute the 2007 registry contract with ICM. This could and should happen. The US administration has changed and is no longer as beholden to the religious right. The remaining opposition within the GAC is likely quite isolated and far more concerned about new gTLDs in general. .XXX has been a thorn in the Board's side for several years, undermining ICANN's credibility and costing both parties around $6 million dollars. It can't go on. In arguments for 'not now': it would be a dramatic step that repudiates ICANN's past actions. The 2007 contract may no longer be fit for purpose. No one wants to be the host city or the CEO to open up the floodgates to yet more porn on the Internet.

Like any long running disagreement, the facts and sequence of events are in dispute. A posting by CEO Rod Beckstrom on the ICANN blog included an incomplete timeline and didn't commit to implementing anything more than the narrowest legal interpretation of the panel's findings. Many commenters attacked this, saying ICANN should just get on and do the right thing. This week in Nairobi CEO Rod Beckstrom has distanced himself from the blog posting, saying it was written by ICANN's General Counsel John Jeffrey. While that's not the most courageous stance I've ever seen, I hope it signals a move toward decisive action on .XXX.

Why is .XXX so difficult to sort out? The .XXX application triggered the perfect storm of conflict that got right to the heart of ICANN's mission and its point of deepest vulnerability. The average quango bumbles along for decades and never faces the precise set of people, motivation and cause with the potential to tear it apart. ICANN does so about every five years.

The .XXX affair exposed ICANN's core vulnerability, and gave flesh to all the conspiracy theories about the US government 'controlling the root'. The independent review panel's account sets out in black and white the invincible pressure on ICANN caused by a right wing religious lobby group's letter writing campaign to the US Department of Commerce. The panel drew strongly on Paul Twomey's statement that in the summer of 2005 the DoC said it would not put .XXX into the root. The version of events now in the public domain has not been publicly contested by the DoC.

The DoC's threat to unilaterally keep .XXX out of the root meant that ICANN, having gone through its whole consultative process and come to a decision well within the limits of its powers, would have publicly and finally been stripped of every last rag of its authority and raison d'etre. If this had been made public, ICANN would have been finished. At that point in the global Internet governance debate, the proof that the US government felt free to interfere in ICANN's work and exercise ultimate control over the Internet root would have fatally weakened the case for multi-stakeholder governance.

Not surprisingly, ICANN's leadership decided that is own failure to honour its commitment to ICM was the lesser of two evils. For the second time in eighteen months, ICANN faced down an existential threat and limped away, badly damaged. A legitimate question we can all ask ourselves is 'was it worth it'?

From the relative comfort of a lawyer's briefing room, it's easy to condemn ICANN's then leadership for not following through on the .XXX contract. ICANN's leaders faced the appalling dilemma of 'bombing the village in order to save it'. All ICM wants to do is run a registry and make some money. They played by the rules and didn't want to be drawn in to a world of international realpolitik. But there's no denying that's the world this dispute lives in. The legalistic nature of the dispute means ICM and most critics focus on ICANN's abrogation of its own procedures. This is important, but narrows the view too much to appreciate the big picture.

Who is the most at fault? Political appointees at DoC allowed religious extremists and bully boy tactics to drive policy on the stewardship of a global resource. They let momentary, parochial domestic impulses over-ride America's larger interest in a free and global Internet.

Stuart Lawley of ICM was absolutely right when he told me a couple of days ago that this issue is about much more than just a smutty little porn thing. It's a test of ICANN's accountability. The independent review panel is the jewel in the crown of ICANN's accountability mechanisms. Its declaration demands a substantive response, not just a discussion of the issues.

But .XXX is about more than ICANN's accountability, too. On a day in Nairobi that included a closed session on the role of the Government Advisory Committee and ICANN's institutional evolution, the transparency and accountability of individual governments should be in the spotlight, too.

Written by Maria Farrell, Independent Consultant

But when the Chairman backed away from that stance earlier this week in Nairobi, it became clear that we should have held our breath a little bit longer.

ICANN's Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) is the bible for companies and organizations seeking to launch a new top-level domain. The latest iteration of the DAG, released last year, included a provision that would allow ICANN to summarily rewrite the terms of its contracts with new domain operators, even after those contracts are signed.

Members of the community roundly criticized the proposal ­ which turns the fundamental covenant of a contract on its head, and has ramifications that extend far beyond prospective operators of new domains. When Dengate-Thrush signaled his own concern with the provision, many assumed that it was well on its way to being removed, or at the very least replaced with something more reasonable.

This week, however, the Chairman backed away from that position, saying that ICANN would need the flexibility to make changes to already-singed registry contracts. This has the potential to be a serious blow, not just to new registry operators, but also to clarity, contractual compliance and due process throughout ICANN.

Contracts form the backbone of ICANN's larger compact with the global Internet community. The subject of contracts, and of contract enforcement has been a repeated theme in the larger discussion of accountability and transparency within the organization.

On the eve of a critical review of ICANN's transparency and accountability, it would send a terrible message if ICANN were to take a giant step away from contractual certainty and fairness.

ICANN is under great pressure to finalize the DAG and launch the new TLD round, but this is an issue that cannot be overlooked. The community has spoken through the bottom-up process, and has said in a clear voice that this contractual provision is unacceptable. Even the most fervent proponents of the new TLD round cannot wish for a contractual obligation that can be changed at ICANN's whim.

The place to address this is here in Nairobi. ICANN needs to send a clear signal that it understands the community's concerns, and will work quickly to develop a contractual structure that is fair to all.

With any luck, new registries won't have to consider Dengate-Thrush's extremely sound legal advice, and not sign.

Written by Jonathan Zuck, President

Read full story: BBC

Read full story: Computerworld

But what about the poorer nations of the world that use scripts other than the largest IDNs and the typical Latin character set currently available on the net? What about Amharic, or Georgian, Azeri or Thai, Burmese or Cambodian? Doesn't the internet community have a goal of reaching out to them in their own languages too? The answer is yes, but I fear that despite the rhetoric, some of ICANN's policies may actually end up creating disincentives for companies wishing to fully build out the IDN space.

To listen to the words of Rod Beckstrom, ICANN's new-ish leader, the community's goal is to help make the internet available to anyone in their own language—and in their own character set or script. And, as we heard during the Seoul ICANN meeting last year—there was actually a celebratory cocktail to usher in the new IDN age—IDNs are the future. Still, work on Chinese, Korean and the like is only the beginning. There are dozens of scripts out there.

However, there is potentially a real flaw in ICANN's planning that threatens to upend this vision of universal IDN access, effectively leaving some scripts "out in the cold". Under ICANN's new gTLD implementation plan as presently proposed, registries operating existing gTLDs (or those hoping to operate new ones) will be required to apply for each IDN version separately… and pay full fees for each one. This directly impacts the go/no go decision for registry operators who need to make a reasonable "business case" for each script that they apply for, in order to justify the high application costs. And, while these costs might seem trivial for gTLDs in, say, Chinese or Arabic, this policy pretty much ensures that registry operators (new or old) will leave some scripts undeveloped.

The likely upshot is that the gTLD revolution going on around the world will bypass Georgian, Burmese, and Amharic entirely… furthering the digital divide.

There may be a solution, if ICANN has the flexibility to adjust its policies. Many of the evaluation costs in the new gTLD process are duplicated. As just one example, if a potential registry operator applies for multiple gTLDs, it is likely that most technical qualifications will only have to be evaluated once. This would lower ICANN's evaluation costs, and should lead to reduced application costs as well, leading to more competition for (and interest in) smaller scripts. And there may be other ways to lower the barriers to entry so that companies large and small will be able to make the business case for a truly, fully IDN-friendly internet.

At every ICANN and Internet Governance Forum meeting we hear about the need to make the internet an equal- (or at least more equal-) access platform, one that respects language and culture diversity. Lowering the costs for companies wanting to provide IDN access in less popular scripts is one obvious, tangible way to make this happen. A little flexibility could go a long way to providing a real internet future for the millions that speak and write Armenian or Burmese or a host of other languages.

Written by Andrew Mack, Principal at AMGlobal Consulting

Coverage of past ICANN meetings:
ICANN 36 in Seoul, South Korea
ICANN 35 in Sydney, Australia
ICANN 34 in Mexico City

Comments and questions?
Please post them below in the comment section of the page or send us an email.

* * *

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:27 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. summarizes the ICANN 37 meetings in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:25 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. talks with Anthony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:35 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. sits down with Bart Boswinkle, Senior Policy Advisor for the Country Code Name Supporting Organization, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:30 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with Zahid Jamil, a representative for business interests and other major topics, and a big player for ICANN, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. talks about DNS Security (DNSSEC) with longtime Internet industry leader Steve Crocker, CEO of Shinkuro Inc., at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Updates on the root being signed or scheduled to be signed: .ORG to be signed in July, .COM next year, .NET end of 2010. ccTLDs's showing much activity across the board.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:46 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. spends a few minutes with Ndeye Maimouna, Director of ITC in Senegal, about security around the location of this ICANN 37 meeting being in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. discusses a 2nd topic with Margie Milam about vertical integration and registry/registrar separation around distribution at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:31 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with ICANN Policy Director, Marika Konings, about registration abuse at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. meets with Stephane Van Gelder, General Manager of Indom.com at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. meets with Margie Milam, ICANN Senior Policy Counselor, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. The main topic for this video is Specific Trademark Issues (STI).

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with ICANN CEO, Rod Beckstrom, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Big stories coming out of Kenya include further networking out of Africa, EOI board vote and progress areas for new gTLDs.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:10 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. has a discussion with Liz Gasster, ICANN Senior Policy Counselor, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. WHOIS is the main topic.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. chats with Avri Doria, Chair, Executive Committee of the ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Expressions of interest in new gTLD is the main topic.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:24 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. discusses the .XXX TLD with Stuart Lawley, Chairman & President of the ICM Registry at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:23 PM — Gray Chynoweth, General Counsel & VP, HR at Dyn Inc. discusses the upcoming ICANN 37 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. Gray introduces the video blog series, done in conjunction with CircleID for the 4th time. Gray also outlines the topics for this event including security and remote access, new TLD's, the .xxx gTLD, DNSSEC rollout, root scaling, WHOIS study and more.

If you're not making the trip out to Africa, stay tuned and watch all of the footage from ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya following Gray's hike of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania with other Internet professionals (http://kili2010.com).

Brought to you in partnership with Dyn Inc. Please add your feedback and suggestions using the comment form provided on this page or contact us directly.

All ICANN meetings seem to be surrounded by some bit of controversy and excitement, but the Nairobi meeting is possibly more dramatic than many others. The last attempt to hold a meeting in Nairobi failed, with ICANN opting to hold the meeting near LA's airport, LAX, instead. This time round there was quite a bit of controversy and tension surrounding the meeting's location.

The end result of the tension, security worries and everything else is that quite a large number of people who would normally attend the meeting will be staying at home.

Others will be traveling to Reston, VA, where Neustar has organised a US offsite location. Though with the time difference between VA and Nairobi anyone in attendance will end up working through the night!

So what's on the agenda?

New TLDs—this time round the focus will be on "EOI"—the concept of "expressions of interest" that was mooted at the last meeting in Seoul.

DNS SEC will be on the agenda again, but getting excited about it is far from easy - sorry!

IPv4 depletion will probably get a look in, but it's still a "hard sell". Until ISPs "buy in" and start deploying v6 on their public networks it's going to be nigh on impossible to make any tangible or meaningful movement in this area.

IDN ccTLDs. You can expect updates from the various countries that have applied using the "fast track". There might be more applications from other countries, as the meeting will have attracted its usual media circus.

But the real "hot potato" for ICANN is going to be .xxx

Following on from the recent decision which found that ICANN had "dropped the ball", the ICANN board will be voting on the Friday of the public meeting.

In reality you can expect to see board members being canvassed / briefed / harassed by interested parties pretty much all week. How will they vote?

Will the US government try to intervene?

If ICANN do move ahead with .xxx, will that have any impact on new TLDs?

If ICANN's board doesn't move ahead with .xxx this time round there is little or no chance that Stuart Lawley and ICM Registry are going to throw in the towel.

To start with they've no reason to. They have just won a legal battle that shows that ICANN was in the wrong. Sure, it may not be "binding", but any decision that so much as casts a doubt on ICANN's processes and procedures is a "win" for ICM—and rightly so.

So how would ICANN fare if ICM were to pursue this through to the next level?

ICANN stakeholders probably don't want to see their money being poured down a legal drain ... I know I don't.

Written by Michele Neylon, MD of Blacknight Solutions