ICANN must control its own future

[<netgranite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After reading through all the posts, it is clear that this conflict is about
control.

 

Control by Registrars over ICANN's decision making - by way of the
checkbook.  They write the checks, so they want the power.  They don't care
who controls the .com TLD, as long as they control the price and the
services provided.

 

Control by Verisign over future costs and business predictability.  Although
there are no direct posts by Verisign here, it would appear that Verisign
wants presumptive renewal in order to make pragmatic long term business
decisions - and they are willing to pay $20 million in no strings attached
money to get it.

 

Control by ICANN over its own destiny.  After reading Paul Twomey's opening
remarks at the Vancouver 2005 meeting, it appears that ICANN's future is
limited by its (empty) pocketbook.  The settlement's cash pay out gets some
control back - and avoids a future dominated by the UN.

 

ICANN's independence is the only one that matters. It is especially telling
that one letter, from Nat Cohen of Telepathy, Inc., notes "This settlement
plainly benefits ICANN." and yet he castigates the ICANN board for
considering the settlement as a solution.  For Telepathy and registrars,
what is good for ICANN, may not be good for them.

 

Ultimately, the ICANN board must take the necessary steps to secure funding
to handle its key mission: ".coordinating the management of the technical
elements of the DNS to ensure universal resolvability so that all users of
the Internet can find all valid addresses."

 

Clearly, the settlement will provide for that fundamental mission to be met
- and far more. I would urge the board to support the settlement because it
gives ICANN the most important thing any organization, or any person can
have:  Control over one's own destiny.

 

R. Jens Francis

The Faultline Group