No new TLDs for a while — and SiteFinder
Two pointers for today: First, Beyond the Verisign vs. ICANN Battle, in businessweek.com, which says that the net's archaic infrastructure needs to grow up. The article makes the “religion” points (without using the name) that interest me — that governance is “paralyzed by an old guard.” That feels like the right description, particularly of the SESAC committee. But I disagree with the article's assertion that SiteFinde broke anything significant. If it did, then ICANN should come out with…an emergency consensus policy saying so.
Second pointer: no new TLDs for a while. While I agree that Stuart Lynn's “chalice” of three new sTLDs seemed like a gift that ICANN didn't need, it's difficult for all the people lined up to apply to believe in this process. And I will bet that we won't be seeing new TLDs for years. I think we'll see a process that outlines a procedure that discusses an approach that recommends a strategy …. Years.
WLS goes to trial
Bret Fausett reports that after extensive oral argument Judge Webster has decided to ask ICANN whether it wants to put off implementing WLS until after a December trial date. If ICANN says it's unwilling to do that, then he'll issue an injunction opinion in the next week or so.
It looks from Bret's report as if it's a toss-up what will happen here. I'm disturbed by the judge's questioning about the consensus policy clauses — ICANN should have made clear to him (and tried to in its papers) that registries are free to roll out services unless there exists a consensus policy to the contrary, that ICANN was only asking registrars (and the GNSO) for advice on Appendix G, and that the registrar opposition to WLS (which itself isn't uniform) doesn't represent a consensus policy. In my mind, he must be leaning towards some kind of injunctive relief, which would be a set-back for ICANN generally.
Also, I'm concerned that ICANN views its negotiations with VeriSign as having a long way to go. Didn't ICANN make a suggestion about Condition C? And didn't V ask that that be reconsidered? So couldn't V withdraw its request for reconsideration — and wouldn't ICANN then be obligated to wind up the negotiations? If ICANN asks for more (in a move to placate the registrars) that will be a clearly anti-competitive action on ICANN's part. ICANN has no authority to negotiate the details of registry services — unless they break the registry-registrar protocol in some way. Which this doesn't.
All in all, a bleak (if brief) report. Looking forward to more details.