RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Update on what I know, or don't: 
The hearing is now one of two. House hearing rumored/or perhaps confirmed by 
now.
If members have the testimony, post it to bc-private, rather than bc-gNSO. 


> From: sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:51:14 -0500
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> 
> 
>  
> Well said!  I'd also like to see copies of any testimony that is available.  
> It will be interesting to see what transpires at tomorrow's hearing.
> 
> Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah B. Deutsch 
> Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
> Verizon Communications 
> Phone: 703-351-3044 
> Fax: 703-351-3670 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Mike Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:38 PM
> To: bc - GNSO list
> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> 
> 
> Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling that 
> ICANN is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position from which 
> it may not recover.
> 
> I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue Mosque 
> in Istanbul.   Worth a trip if you haven't seen it.
> 
> After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down the 
> peninsula and ravaged the city.  So walls were built.   Then sieges were put 
> in place and folks ran out of water.  So at great expense the cistern was dug 
> and covered over.   Then longer sieges, etc.  The invaders prevailed.
> 
> The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of building 
> walls thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day.
> 
> The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to cover every 
> possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new TLDs.   And doesn't 
> succeed.
> 
> Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple relationships to 
> ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, the core rationale for 
> our constituency is to represent business users of the Domain Name System.   
> Setting aside IDNs, which have their own rationale, I haven't seen any 
> enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and most of us have been opposed but 
> willing to work on the details with ICANN because that seemed better than 
> letting it happen without any input from us.   What we have gotten for our 
> trouble is Kurt claiming in his testimony that there is broad community 
> support for new TLDs.  That has never been the case.
> 
> The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program has 
> produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense, including more 
> than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of whack.   It's time for us 
> to acknowledge this, and say so publicly.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>