ICANN presents misleading blackline comparison document regarding pricing?
Hi folks, I noticed ICANN posted a note today extending the comments deadline for new gTLDs, and also posting a couple of documents, see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03dec08-en.htm I've attached a copy of the second PDF to this email, in case the one posted by ICANN should change. One of the major concerns of the new draft contracts, as noted in other posted comments, has been the elimination of pricing controls, i.e. section 7.3 of the 2005-2007 gTLD agreement, see for example page 12 of: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-expanded-summary-changes-02dec08-en.pdf "Price controls have been removed for 2008 in favor of the transparent pricing model outlined above." Now, take a look at the annotated "blackline" comparison document that I've attached, which is what they've posted at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-annotated-comparison-03dec08-en.pdf Instead of section 7.3 being blacklined (say around page 22 or 23), they've removed it entirely, misleading people into thinking that 7.3 didn't exist in the past and that a major change has not been proposed! You can see 7.3 in the current .biz agreement, for example, at: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm I cannot imagine why they would remove it entirely from the annotation document, instead of blacklining it like every other section. This either goes to pure incompetence, or ICANN intentionally presenting misleading documents to the community in order to avoid debate on an important change. This is the same ICANN staff who posted a demonstrably false description about section 7.3 previously as noted at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02151.html "ICANN's unsponsored gTLD registry agreements have not included price controls." and then simply made a change to an already posted document directly: http://blog.icann.org/?p=380 "Update: I?ve just been told that our first correction is in. George Kirikos has noticed a discrepancy on the issue of price controls on previous new gTLDs, so we have added a clarifying note." without archiving the prior version. This brings up the issue as to whether any other ICANN documents have been changed in a stealth manner, so that a document read on Day 1 might not be identical to one read some time later. This is the same ICANN staff that wants to be able to amend contracts without public comment and scrutiny -- see comment F.11 at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00026.html ICANN's Board needs to investigate why this happened, and hold the relevant staff accountable for this outrage. This is simply unacceptable behaviour to present such a misleading document, especially on a sensitive topic that ICANN is certainly aware has the attention of many in the community. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.leap.com/