According to my understanding the report is made in the name of "ICANN staff"
= ICANN, and consists "the results of the staff review of the applications".ICANN
probably formed an "evaluation team" within ICANN to do the work. It is this team
that got the request from some other "ICANN staff" to "examine Image Online Design's
application more closely".
ICANN has also used some "outside advisors" to help
them (see http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/report-appa-09nov00.htm).
It is
my fear (I don't say that this is the truth):
- that ICANN staff (and maybe the
board) don't want to accept IOD for anything in the world. This has to do with their
disputes over the last years. To ICANN IOD and Mr Ambler is most annoying, and who
want's to "reward" someone who is annoying?
- that ICANN staff (and maybe the board)
didn't quite dare to just reject IOD without any arguments, even if they would like
to. The criticism from outside would be to sharp. So they "made up" some arguments
in the report (many who have read the report believes that). In fact, the statement
in the report that it was ONLY "because of the large number of favorable comments..."
that they examined IODs application more closely, is part of that smoke screen.
-
that ICANN staff (and maybe the board) wants to give the .web TLD to Afilias (NSI...),
for any reason (I can't understand why).
- that ICANN staff (and maybe the board)
predicted that selecting Afilias would PERHAPS be to risky, DEPENDING on the reactions
to the report. It could draw to much criticism and raise to many queations, so they
prepared plan B, namely Neustar ("This application has many strengths. [...] Overall,
this application is a stronger application..."). Anything to avoid having to select
IOD if plan A (Afilias) fails. Then they can select Neustar, and because the report
backs it up and because most of the criticism to the report is about IOD and/or Afilias
that choice is pretty safe for ICANN.
However, ICANN board is not envolved
in the report (shouldn't be anyway). It is my understanding that the report has been
made by STAFF to serve as the basis of the BOARDS decision.
It is my hope:
-
that I'm wrong about my fears, and that the incorrect critisism to IOD in the report
was due to the human factor (or something) AND that ICANN realizes their mistake
AND that ICANN corrects it.
- that the BOARD is not the same thing as STAFF. Then
the BOARD can correct the mistake if staff won't.
- that the BOARD don't feal
obligated to maintain STAFFs prestige, and just hold them behind it's back, saying
that the report stands.
Håkan Hansson
Programbyrån AB