Folks, it doesn't get any more clear than this what ICANN thinks of your input.
Here's the public comment announcement, dated November 9, 2006:
Under the terms of the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, following receipt of the RSTEP report, the ICANN Board will determine whether the proposed Registry
Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on
Stability or Security.
ICANN invites public comments on the RSTEP Report through 18:00 UTC (10:00
PST) on 7 December 2006.
And here's the Board's resolution of November 22, 2006:Review of .TRAVEL Wildcard Proposal
Whereas, Tralliance Corporation submitted a request for a new registry service called search.travel under the Registry Services Evaluation Policy. The proposed service would insert a wildcard into the .TRAVEL zone.
Whereas, ICANN conducted its review of the request and determined that although there were no significant competition issues, the proposal might raise significant security and stability issues and referred the proposal to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel for further evaluation.
Whereas, on 2 November 2006, the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel review team completed its report on the search.travel proposal. The report was posted for public comment.
Whereas, based on the report of the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel, input from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, At-Large Advisory Committee and other public comments, ICANN has concluded that the proposal creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability.
Resolved, (06.85) that the Board agrees that the Tralliance Corporation search.travel wildcard proposal creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability and directs staff to inform Tralliance that the proposal is not approved.
Whereas, Tralliance Corporation submitted a request for a new registry service called search.travel under the Registry Services Evaluation Policy. The proposed service would insert a wildcard into the .TRAVEL zone.
Whereas, ICANN conducted its review of the request and determined that although there were no significant competition issues, the proposal might raise significant security and stability issues and referred the proposal to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel for further evaluation.
Whereas, on 2 November 2006, the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel review team completed its report on the search.travel proposal. The report was posted for public comment.
Whereas, based on the report of the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel, input from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, At-Large Advisory Committee and other public comments, ICANN has concluded that the proposal creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability.
Resolved, (06.85) that the Board agrees that the Tralliance Corporation search.travel wildcard proposal creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability and directs staff to inform Tralliance that the proposal is not approved.
All of which has the folks at Tralliance wondering what happened:
Tralliance President Ron Andruff said Thursday his company had yet to
be informed of a decision and noted a public-comment period wasn't
scheduled to end until Dec. 7. An ICANN spokesman had no immediate
explanation.
Of course there was no immediate explanation. What on earth could they say?
