The Public Comments are Sham. They provide this forum so they can
trick Congress into believing they are transparent and that they represent the consensus
of the Internet community. This is untrue of course. It is apparent they are on course
to do as they wish otherwise why not a public comments period before these aggreements
were even considered?
Just when you though ICANN coudn't possibly be more arrogant
in their contempt of the Internet community they hand us this.
Congress must
be made aware. Rememeber more hearings of ICANN are forthcomingICANN's consensus
is derived basically from the supporting organizations where big business stakeholders
hold the power.
Remember Mr. Ken Stubbs former Chairman of the Names Council of
the DNSO who as it so happens is also the Chairman of Afilias the company chosen
to operate .info. Why hasn't ICANN addressed the Conflict of Interest?
Proposed
.org Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.com/nsi/proposed-org-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm
4.3
Manner of Establishment of New and Revised Specifications and Policies.
4.3.1 "Consensus
Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among
Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action
of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation,
adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization
to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established,
and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive
submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents
the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the
outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of
groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity
of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.