Proposed .travel DNS wild card
- To: tralliance-comments@xxxxxxxxx, comments@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Proposed .travel DNS wild card
- From: "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:32:14 -0700
ICANN should not consider or act on this proposal while a request for
independent review of the decision to approve .travel is pending.
On 8 April 2005, I requested that the resolution of the ICANN Board of
Directors to approve a ".travel" agreement be referred to an independent
review panel (IRP) in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws, and that ICANN stay
any action on a ".travel" agreement until such time as the Board reviews
and acts upon the opinion of the IRP, and while my request for a
recommendation from the IRP for a stay is pending:
ICANN has not yet publicly considered or acted on this request, despite my
diligent efforts and continuing demand that ICANN do so, as detailed at:
I request that ICANN stay any consideration of proposals for expansion of
.travel or new registry or other services related to .travel, until:
(1) ICANN has considered (at a maximally-open meeting for which proper
notice has been provided) and acted on my request for a stay pending
independent review of the openness and transparency (or lack thereof) of
the process by which ICANN decided to approve .travel;
(2) ICANN has completed a policy development process to designate an
independent review provider and approve procedures for independent review,
in accordance with the procedural requirements of ICANN's Bylaws for such
a policy development process and policy decisions;
(3) ICANN has referred my pending request for independent review to a duly-
(4) the independent review panel has had an adequate opportunity to
consider and act on my request for a stay pending independent review; and
(5) ICANN has considered and acted on the recommendation of the IRP
concerning a stay pending independent review.
It would be inappropriate and potentially detrimental to Internet
stability for ICANN to approve any expansion of .travel or related
services while this request for independent review and stay is pending.
If ICANN eventually complies with the requirements of its Bylaws to
designate an IRP and approve procedures for independent review (according
to the procedures required by ICANN's Bylaws for such policy decisions),
and to refer my request to such a duly-designated IRP according to such
duly-approved procedures, and if the independent review panel finds that
ICANN's actions in approving .travel were inconsistent with ICANN's Bylaws
on transparency, the appropriate action would be for ICANN to void that
decision, or at least to stay it pending a de novo review according to
procedures consistent with ICANN's transparency and other Bylaws.
Expansion of .travel and related services would make it more difficult,
and potentially detrimental to Internet stability, to remove .travel from
the root. In effect, this will incrementally deprive the IRP of any
meaningful authority -- as guaranteed by the Bylaws -- to recommend a stay
or reversal of the decision subject to the independent review request.
I also remind ICANN that my request for independent review of the lack of
openness and transparency in the decision-making process on .travel was
accompanied by my request for "notice, as far in advance and in as much
detail as is known, of the time, place, and manner of any meetings to be
held by ICANN or any of its constituent bodies, and for copies of any
documents to be considered by them, related to ".travel", to my requests,
or to policies for independent review of ICANN actions."
I have received no response to this request, which I hereby reiterate.
"The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World"
(3rd edition, 2004, 4th edition forthcoming 2007)
"The Practical Nomad Guide to the Online Travel Marketplace"