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) gets to risky. 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.
Maybe it is to much to hope for the board
to go against their own staff, IF the staff don't correct their mistake themselves.
But it's my hope.
It is my suggestion that:
- this public forum concentrates
more on Neustar (the feared "plan B"). This forum doesn't contain many comments on
Neustar. How does their application stand against IODs? Is there any obvious errors
in the staff report regarding Neustar?
Håkan Hansson
Programbyrån AB