Letter written on behalf of Vint Cerf (LA Times):
"When we give an organization
the rights to run with a new TLD, we make sure that they strive to comply with the
intent of our guidelines. If we find that the corporation or its members are operating
outside the realm of our guidance, we are always keen to remind them of their obligations
- which, whilst completely non-binding, give firm indication of our committment."
ICANN "make sure that they strive to comply with the intent of our guidelines" then
WHY didn't they kick up a public stink when Afilias flouted the ICANN contracts;
when Afilias executives and directors broke the agreed rules and submitted fraudulent
applications; when Afilias officials make large amounts of money to sponsor ineligible
applications (and then register them); when huge conflicts of interests emerge, with
Registry officials making money in their 'alter ego' capacities as registrars; when
the public asks Vint Cerf again and again to comment on detailed and serious causes
for concern, and he does not reply or enter into dialogue.
To say that ICANN makes
sure the registries abide by the rules is a laughable assertion, when everyone in
the internet community KNOWS that they PRESIDED over the debacle and ALLOWED it all
Sanctions against accredited registrars: NIL
cerf's spokesman claims ICANN cannot enforce their own contracts!
That is laughable
too! What kind of contract "isn't" a contract. Or what kind of organisation creates
a contract which is allowed to be broken?
If ICANN had the powers to give an organisation
the powers to run a Registry, and provided a contract, then even a first-grader would
realise that the "right" to run the registry should be dependent on adherence to
ICANN has consciously allowed the new Registries to run wild and
free - at the expense of consumer rights - and the question is why?
obligations are completely non-binding."
Incompetent or corrupt?
you are saying, Vint, that they can do whatever they want.