house of cards?
well... ICANN appears to be negotiating with resources it does not have or control. VSGN, on the other hand, appears to be making a deal that leverages on its proven strengths to provide a known, well documented, and stable services in the, arguably, largest domain in the Internet. While one might argue over the terms of such an agreement, it is clear that VSGn is agreeing w/ ICANN on many points that allow for the .COM data to be escrowed as well as published in a stable and secure manner for years to come. ICANN is basing its position on as yet unformalized and apparently questionable presumptions that the US DoC will overlook ICANNs inability to make good on its long-standing promises and actually award ICANN the franchise to manage the IANA tasks. The settlement drafts are clearly one-sided, talking about what will happen when/if the Registry Operator (VSGN) fails to perform, becomes bankrupt or is otherwise unable to meet its obligations. There is only passing mention of what the outcome will be if ICANN finds itself in similar straits. Then there are the issues surrounding management of the root zone data. There are clearly more parties of interest in this topic and it is presumptious at best, to conclude that ICANN and VSGN can conclude its fate w/o extensive discussion and approval from these other parties. A final point is the hijacking of the .ARPA domain from the IAB. It is not clear to me which party incalculated this component into the agreements (I have my ideas) but theft of the management of this domain without the approval of the IAB and the US DoC is ... theft. all told, it is late in the day and i am clearly not in a position to know all or even part of the negotiations and back-room discussions that lead to these documents. from the outside, it looks like two 800lb gorillas trying to re-arrainge the playing field with NO consideration for the incumbents. A power grab by ICANN? thats what it looks like from here. --bill manning |