The ICANN process was so horribly flawed it was a total waste of money to apply.
ARNI has its own DDRP and does not intend to adhere to the one-sided UDRP that is
theft by fiat. We also adhere to the original concept of FCFS in registering
domain names and would not consider a sunrise provision. There is little point
to the introduction of new gTLDs if the Trademark Lobby has priority in choice of
domain names in every TLD. The Working Groups determined that it was an unwise
and unworkable situation, but ICANN found a way around those recommendations by intimidation
via the application criteria and questions. All of our concerns and predictions
were bourne out when the ICANN BoD made their selections.
In addition, we intend
to bring on our own accredited registrars and are developing the SRS to do so.
At this time, there is no plan to charge registrars for the software as Verisign
does. However, if there is a charge at all, it will be minimal. It will
be open source as well, according to present plans. ICANN accredited registrars
are welcome to apply, but their contracts with ICANN will most likely "restrain"
them from doing so.
Further, since our policies are in favor of registrants
and users, our application would not have stood much of a chance in the "lottery".
We also have a real problem with the losers funding the implementation of the winners
and funding ICANN's defense of litigation brought by the losers and others.
The $50k was to fill their coffers.
Still further, we have an existing registry
with thousands of registrants and did not feel that we should be treated any differently
than ccTLDs that are included in the USG root without benefit of contract.
There is no need for us to "prove our concept." It works.
And further yet,
for a small business $50,000 could be much better spent for infrastructure, development
and customer support.
If ICANN had stayed with the concept of a technical coordinating
body and had cooperated, as they were supposed to do, with other entities, they could
have gained support and credibility. Instead they chose to carve up the bylaws,
set themselves up as a world governance body that answers to no one, to maintain
a self-seated board rather than hold an election within months, disenfranchise the
at-large community and destablize the net by offering to introduce collisions and
harm existing businesses.
Our applying to ICANN would have bolstered the notion
that what they are doing is all right. It is not. We (Inclusive Name
Space) have offered cooperation. ICANN does not understand the word, but instead
insists they are "the only real root" and continue to ignore reality.
Regards,
Leah
Gallegos