The first Africa DNS Forum will take place on Friday, July 12, and Saturday, July 13, 2013, in Durban, South Africa, in advance of next week's ICANN 47 meeting. Jointly organized by AfTLD, ICANN and the Internet Society, the Africa DNS Forum "aims to establish a platform for the DNS community across Africa and to advance the domain name industry and domain name registrations on the continent."
Well more than a year ago, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee published SSAC 053, its paper on single-label domain names - now referred to in the community as "dotless" domains - advising against their use. In a robust comment period, the community weighed in on the utility and safety of dotless domains, with some in favor and some opposed. To address the matter, ICANN has commissioned further study of the issue with an eye toward resolving the issue for new gTLD applicants.
Back when I started working in this industry in 2001, ICANN was small, the industry was tight, and things moved slowly as interest groups negotiated a balance amongst the impacts of change. Change often meant added overhead and, at the very least, a one-time cost effort to implement on the commercial side. Registries and registrars preferred to be hands-off when it came to how their domains were being used. But e-crime became big business during the 2000s.
ICANN stated recently that it will allow similar (i.e. singular and plural) versions of the same string to co-exist for new Top-Level Domains (TLDs). This surprising decision immediately begs the question: "Will ICANN give holders of a string first refusal on the (singular or plural) version that they do not already hold during the next round of applications where only one version (singular or plural) of a string has been awarded?"
Five years after ICANN approved the new gTLD policy in Paris, two years after it approved the implementation plan in Singapore, and a year after the application window closed and some concrete steps were taken toward delegation of new gTLDs, a series of scary-sounding "what if" scenarios have mysteriously taken over discussions at ICANN. From colliding names and failing life support systems to mass confusion and technological outages, the profusion of horror stories has rivaled the hype for the Y2K conversion, with about as much basis in fact.
Have some security aspects been overlooked in the rush to conclude the new gTLD program and "give birth to the baby before it starts to get really sick" as ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé put it at a briefing jointly organised by ICANN and the European Commission a few days ago? Ever since 2008 when the ICANN Board approved the GNSO-evolved policy that became the new gTLD program, it has been reworked so much that it's difficult to imagine any stone has been left unturned. Yet a recent letter threatens to open up a new can of worms.
There is no doubt that the new gTLD program has been the most encouraging revolutionary program in the history of internet. As everybody expected, there have been lots of positive and negative insights about this program in recent years and during the process of development of the program, pushing ICANN to be very conservative in its program in order to satisfy all internet stakeholders.
I've written about "closed generic" new TLD applications several times over the last year. I'm opposed to them, as I've said in the past and continue to say today. However I've generally been supportive of "restricted" TLDs. The Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) has serious concerns about Google's application for .app and want ICANN's board of directors to treat as a "closed generic".
In an attempt to appease the Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee directed ICANN staff to amend the Registry Agreement so that all New gTLD Registries will be required to include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreement a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name.
As some readers probably know, I spend quite a bit of my time working on Internet policy related matters. Some of it may appear incredibly boring, but it matters. (If you really want me to explain why it matters I'd be happy to do so!) Since earlier this year I've been part of a small team of people drawn from the four corners of the globe and asked to re-examine "whois".