Note: This recommendation is superseded by a revised recommendation.
In reconsideration request 00-15, ICM Registry requests that the ICANN Board clarify certain statements made during the new TLD selection process, which did not ultimately include ICM's TLD .XXX application among the registry proposals selected for the proof of concept phase.
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST
The ICM Registry's reconsideration request does not seek reconsideration of the Board's November 16, 2000, decision on new TLDs. Rather, the "primary reason" for ICM Registry's request is to obtain clarification of "mischaracterizations that appeared in the final staff report that were further reinforced during the ICANN Public Forum and Board meeting [and] have impeded ICM Registry's effort to build consensus in connection with this top-level domain."
ICM Registry has specifically stated that it does not wish to have its application reconsidered for inclusion in the proof of concept phase. Accordingly, there is no action for the Board to take with respect to the Boards actual decision at this time.
Nevertheless, the committee would make several points in connection with the ICM Registry proposal.
First, no new TLD proposal has been rejected by ICANN; rather, a small set of TLDs was selected for an initial introduction of new TLDs, with the goal of testing diverse new TLD models and approaches. The fact that a new TLD proposal was not selected under those circumstances should not be interpreted as a negative reflection on the proposal or its sponsor. Such negative inferences are particularly misguided when comparing the efforts of those who have constructively worked to propose new TLDs to the Internet community through the ICANN process with those who have sought to bypass the community role in decisions about coordinating the DNS. ICM Registry has uniformly acknowledged that its proposal should stand the tests of community support and the public interest, rather than embarking on a phony "top-level domain" or so-called "experimental root" .xxx effort that would cast aside the global Internet community's open DNS coordination process. The members of this committee place significant value in the commitment of non-selected new TLD proposal sponsors to be active participants in the broader community's efforts to maintain and evolve a stable, unique DNS root.
While the process for community decisions has never been perfect, the value of a stable, unique DNS root is almost universally recognized (leaving aside the small, isolated groups/companies that are mostly interested in making a profit at the cost of a globally interoperable, reliable, non-proprietary DNS service operated in the public interest). Therefore, we reiterate as clearly as we can that participation in last fall's new TLD process reflected a positive commitment to Internet stability; that process ought not be used against those who labored to develop and submit their proposals within the framework of the unique, authoritative DNS root coordinated through community processes in the public interest.
ICANN's mandate in this area is summarized well in the White Paper:
As expressed in the Internet Architecture Board's "Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root," the technical community strongly supports this principle. Accordingly, ICANN is fully committed to a stable, unique DNS root coordinated in the public interest.
Second, we emphasize the fact that the conclusions of ICANN's evaluation team reflected their best judgment and analysis as of October 2000. As the new TLD applicants make preparations for what may be further rounds of new TLD applications, ICANN fully expects that they will use the evaluation team's report as a source of potentially useful guidance about areas that could be improved or better-explained in their future proposals. In the event that the proof-of-concept round is judged a success justifying further TLD expansions, future proposals will be judged on their own merits.
Because ICM Registry does not seek reconsideration of ICANN's decision, we recommend that the Board take no action in response to this request.
[NOTE: Director Abril i Abril did not participate in the committee's consideration of Reconsideration Request 00-15.]
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
(c) 2001 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.