Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: saskia
Date/Time: Sat, November 11, 2000 at 11:37 PM GMT (Sun, November 12, 2000 at 12:37 AM CET)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: "The ICANN plan B": my fears, my hopes and my suggestion

Message:
 


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

Håkan Hansson
Programbyrån AB
Sweden


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy