Public commits

["Christopher Penn" <CPenn@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While it is clear that ICANN is embarking on a monumental task with the nTLD
program, it becomes increasing clear that history will show this to be one
of ICANN’s greatest blemishes and failures. A program which garnished so
much attention, anticipation and potential was coupled with clear and
consist frameworks. ICANN successfully brought together a diverse community
to tackle an issue to which there was no precedence.  ICANN followed on this
tireless task by creating a guidebook that seemed manifested out of the
collaboration of the community’s best ideas; a guidebook that not only
seemed community minded and interested but clear and goal oriented. To date
ICANN has made seemingly EVERY opportunity to circumvent this Guidebook’s
clearest points. 

If not for the damage these actions will have, the situation may be
laughable. From its title, this forum should signal some relief; finally,
ICANN realizes there errors! This momentary joy is followed by the purpose,
CAR/CARS and CAM/COM. As is par for the experience ICANN seems to take one
step forward before exhausting every resource to not only move back but to
move to another track altogether. These two strings seem so clearly similar
that even someone with the most basic of instructions could identify them as
such; then again, this was case with the String Confusion Panel. 

While ICANN promised domain name EXPERT panelist, these experts were in name
only. However, the blame for these inconstant results cannot be scapegoated
on the panelist no more than a manager can blame employees for following
their lack of direction. The purpose of this program was to provide “stable
and unified global Internet” not to reward the ghost of ICANN’s past who
left for “greener” pastures.  ICANN, and the nTLD program, should function
as a bureaucracy. If I go to register a license 10 (ten) times with the same
documents I should come out with the same result each time. However, with
this process one might expect: 4 approved licenses (3 of which would be
appointed to the same parent applicant),   4 denials (twice finding the
documents to be similar yet insufficient; and twice finding the same
documents to be non-similar) one application would be held in a pending
position and the last would be a boat license. If this lack of cohesion does
not signal a problem to ICANN, all these meetings, correspondences, and
hours spent will show this was simply pony show. Parading smaller applicants
around to give the illusion that institution and program had a higher
calling than simple profit seeking.    

It is my formal request that ICANN cease these community discussions, which
serve only as a point of distraction; and rather adhere to the guidelines
discussed to exhaustion in the planning period. ICANN does not need an
overhaul of its systems it simply needs to do what it promised initially.
Evaluate not just CAM/COM AND CAR/CARS but all TLD’s for Visual, Audial and
Meaning as per set policies and guidelines. As ICANN, and the nTLD program
seem firmly set in the second year of the TLD expansion, ICANN seems
determined to live out its “terrible twos” pushing the constraints of its
own tenets. As the program insist on preforming like a toddler, we must
remember core parenting doctrine: paying attention to a problem without
corrective action only serves to reinforce the issue. YES CAR/CARS & CAM/COM
ARE SIMILAR! This point is laughably simple. It is difficult to take this
request for commits serious given the clarity and simplicity of the issue at
hand. The next question is what will ICANN do about the over 60+ strings
that were judge without the proper criteria, this seems to be a more worthy
point of investigation. If this was a freshman introduction into computer
science it would be fully understandable utilizing these two contention sets
to start; always start with the easiest examples. Just like with
introduction cases, however, we must build,  these two are only the dust on
the top of a much larger iceberg. What does ICANN intend to do with the
other 60+ string confusion issues? Taking into account the fact that the
“Expert Panel” found conflicting results on the same TLDs, is proof enough
that the process is faulty. Of course we are forced to express our
discontent on this issue via the two easiest examples; shutting out
exploration to the heart and meat of the issue… reasons? Fear of exploring
institutional failures? Traveling the path of least resistance? Possibly a
case of the tail wagging the dog? Whatever the case, it seems ICANN
officials have the rare second chance. Will ICANN continue to operate in the
defiant “I’m right because I’m right” toddler lifecycle; or will ICANN show
the maturity that becomes an institution of its resources and expertise? Of
course this would require admitting its misstep and retroactively addressing
and fixing its mistakes. Many in the community hold onto a Ernie naiveté
suggesting this could signal a coming growth; hoping that ICANN has the
fortitude to do such an action. However, I personally hold onto my skeptical
Burt philosophy that this is just the same dance around most of us have
received since we started our application process.  While I feel I speak for
most applicants that this process has been frustrating, I find solace in the
fact there exist now a market for textbook writing on how to improperly
manage a system and the peter principal. 

Waiting in anticipation ,

Chris Penn