Why has ICANN closed down the New TLDs Forum. Compared to an average of 75 messages
in the entire life of the other public forums, the New TLDs Forum received over 7000
messages in the months it was operating. If ICANN believes in public participation,
and dialogue, then why suppress an active and lively community?The New TLD agreements
have been advertised as ICANN's "proof of concept"... well, the "proof of concept"
is far from proven, in fact it remains a shambles.
This forum has followed the
working out of the TLD agreements and commented on them, providing a vital analysis
from the standpoint of the consumer and the internet public.
Early on it challenged
the assumption that a trademark name (held by hundreds of different companies) could
be rightly assigned to one entity at what ICANN called "Sunrise".
Before Sunrise
even took place, it predicted that the system would be abused and warned the so-called
professionals.
It questioned the right of ICANN to hijack a TLD like .biz from
a company that was already making its living from it.
As the first Sunrise frauds
came to light, it blew the whistle on domain-squatters like Govinda Leopold, the
Afilias board member who obtained fake Sunrise names through the use of phoney Trademark
numbers.
It predicted the scale of the fraud would be in the region of 20% - a
claim strongly refuted by Michael Palage but which later turned out to be absolutely
correct.
It was vindicated by the resignation of Afilias Director Robert Connelly,
who called the .info Sunrise an "abomination".
It offered through the Domebase
solution an equitable and commonsense solution to the Sunrise fiasco, but was ignored
by ICANN and Afilias.
It brought to light deliberate falsification of Trademark
data by Registars, and extracted admissions from executives like Lars Hindsley.
It
revealed the way in which companies like Speednames (represented on the Afilias board)
and Domainbank (run by Afilias CEO Lubsen) had profited by a total exceeding $500,000
to abuse Afilias's own Sunrise system, by submitting facially ineligible Trademark
data.
It published the hundreds of names falsely registered by ICANN accredited
registrars, and asked why ICANN was prepared to support these companies, and accommodate
their fraud without sanction.
It called on Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn to enter into
dialogue and just talk about some of these very serious concerns.
It showed the
world the "scam" of the same names being sold first for the Landrush, then at Sunrise,
and now being sold yet again for a third time at Landrush 2.
It worked co-operatively
and asked questions which it was fair and reasonable to ask.
And the New TLD Agreements
STILL require a forum as long as the "proof of concept" has not reached its chaotic
conclusion. Because the key issues for discussion are not the paperwork, but how
these agreements work out in practice and impact upon consumers.
In short, with
over 10000 key .info generics still unaccounted for and locked up; and even more
key .biz names lost in a void after legal action; it has to be said that the real
roll-out has hardly even begun.
This same week, the ICANN board under Stuart Lynn's
discredited leadership has initiated steps to remove the democratically accountable
elements of the Board. Even senior congressmen have had enough of ICANN's opaque
dealings.
And to cap it all, Stuart Lynn has marginalised the Public Forum as "a
joke".
It's absolutely simple : forums like the New TLDs forum (which has had over
7000 contributions in its short life) are a tiny window through which some light
of truth may shine.
In a free and democratic society it is right that consumers
should be protected; that consumers should ask fair questions; and that executives
who claim the right to administer a worldwide resource (for all humanity) should
be answerable and accountable in an open and honest process.
To say that ICANN
has failed in this duty is a huge understatement. It has known (and been made aware)
of successive frauds. It has been party to contracts which facilitated these frauds.
And it has presided over the fraudulent activities of its protege registrars which
it continues to accredit and promote - without sanction or public criticism.
This
new TLD forum should not be over, because the internet community will not be sidelined
by a quango which grows self-perpetuating and drifts further and further from the
consumers it purports to serve.
Vint Cerf had a not insignificant reputation in
the past. Much indeed has been owed to him in times gone by. But he has kept silent.
He has evaded this group. By association with ICANN, he has presided over processes
which ran away from public comment. Processes which surrendered the consumer interest
of small businesses and the internet community in favour of big business and the
Trademark lobby.
He has sided with those who were prepared to accommodate a culture
of corruption. He has presided over the defrauding of Landrush customers who lost
in the region of $3,000,000. He has presided over the fraudulent actions and the
imbecilic ineptitude of the Afilias Board and executive. He has smiled benignly at
the corrupt Registrars and when proven corrupt, he has continued to accredit them
and promote them in the name of ICANN.
Where is the consumer in all this?
Where
is the protection for ordinary people?
That is, primarily, what this forum has
all been about.
ICANN's defence has repeatedly been that this has all been a "proof
of concept". But the losses sustained as a result of fraud, as a result of Registry
and Registrar abuse, as a result of non-existent safeguards - these were not a "proof
of concept" : these were real people losing real money, losing real time, losing
real ideals and plans for their future.
The New TLDs forum wishes to continue to
monitor the implementation of the New TLD agreements.
No open, honest and transparent
organisation could deny that it has an important role to fulfil, and any half-decent
organisation would value the input, dialogue and co-operation that this forum can
offer.
It is not yet appropriate to close this forum. It would be more appropriate
for ICANN to question the continuing mandate of its own executive.