RE: [alac] .xxx rejected 9-5
Hi, I always like your reports back to us as they are informative and insightful, but I have to disagree with some of your points. Especially this one:
If this whole sorry saga isn't our business, what is? In my opinion, the board is ineffective because it is afraid of getting sued by this side or that side. In my opinion it has lost its adherence to its true mandate about making sure the internet runs smoothly in a technical sense. I am on the side of innovation, which includes the creation of many many more domain names, and I am not at all convinced that governments should get a say about what is created. (They may decide later what is routed but that is a different question.) Maybe there should be some "hold harmless" clause that exempts the Board from being sued as it carries out its technical duties. It is too afraid of getting sued, and then it makes bad decisions. Look at the Verisign settlement, for example. Meanwhile, the board approved this TLD to go to the negotiation stage last year. The ICM people negotiated in good faith. Even as recently as Wellington, Vint said (from the stage) he would vote for it. ICM Registry did everything the right way and still lost at the last minute. Personally I have to wonder how much pressure the Department of Commerce put on ICANN behind the scenes. What if ICANN approved it and then DOC refused it? ICANN would look powerless, so they may as well reject it now. I guess I could be disabused of this notion if I were able to hear the Board's meetings. I wondered how "sunshine laws" might apply and then I found this informative paper from 1999 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/workshops/LA/papers/openness.html How far we haven't come. Jean Armour Polly
|