| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Lynn responds to new sTLD comments
posted by tbyfield on Thursday December 12 2002, @03:34AM
ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn has published a wide-ranging "Comments on Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs," which is mainly remarkable as a demonstration of just how far ICANN has strayed from its pretense of "technical coordination" -- if there was any lingering doubt. That phrase, invoked for years as a talisman to ward off criticism that the organization had overreached its minimal mission, at least implied that its procedures were somehow rooted in the norms of network engineering and administration. Lynn's new document is fairly dripping in the petulantce and sophistry for which the CEO is known and, uh ... well, known. Thus, for example, Danny Younger is said to have "taken exception with my [Lynn's, naturally] statement," and his response is dismissed as an "interesting conjecture." But lest anyone be lulled into taking his his remarks seriously, the response to his remarks are followed by a response to someone using the nym "NameCritic," who agrees with Danny Younger, accusing me of being an 'outright liar' and a 'head puppet.'" Lynn's response: "I do love these kinds of comments, especially from anonymous sources. Experience tells me that those who resort to name calling do so because they have no substance in their arguments."
|
|
 |
|
The ICANN board's first round of selections was a tour-de-force of incompetence, in which ever-changing criteria and aped "procedures" routinely violated by-laws. However, this new document makes very plain that if that episode was the symptom of a benign growth, under Lynn it has metastasized. Vestiges of "bottom-up" input are quibbled away according to will-o'-the-wisp criteria and, as always, subjective assessment. Says Lynn:
In many conversations I have had on this subject, my own sampling indicates that there are as many, if not more, individuals who favor no more TLDs as there are those who advocate moving forward.
But anyway, objectivity is impossible -- particularly when those who question the process are really just a bunch of bitter, deluded subject-changers:
It is unlikely that there will ever be an evaluation process that will be regarded as objective by everyone, especially by those whose applications did not succeed in the process (who would ever admit that their application simply was not as good as others, when complaining about the process has so much more press value in today's world?). And the hubbub does create a diversion.
Or they just don't get it: "The original .iii proposal, it should be clarified, was for an unsponsored gTLD," and, ex cathedra and a priori, it has been determined that sponsored TLDs (now "sTLDs" -- a neologism that marks the shift from architecture to institution) are on the table.
For those with enough of a stomach left to indulge, Lynn's statement is one of those must-reads of ICANNiana. But, as far as I can tell, the document's main value is as a kremlinological study in who ICANN fears might still have standing to sue -- for example, over the $350,000 ICANN charged to fund its first round of excursions into social engineering. [As anon points out below, the $350,000 amounts is what ICANN should have left from the $2,350,000 it collected from applicants. Kudos to anon for the catch and apologies for the sloppiness -- tb]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Lynn responds to new sTLD comments
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
But surely with IOD/.web the "proof of concept" already existed and was proven!
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Who cares that there are those who do not favor the expansion of namespace? Their motive is clearly connected to an interest in speculating in the current namespace; additional extensions would dillute their holdings.
True... but it's likely that a large part of the constituency for adding new TLDs has similarly self-serving motives -- this includes would-be operators of new TLD registries, as well as speculators who missed the boat on good names in currently-existent TLDs so wish the addition of new ones to give them a chance to speculate on them. Once these people do manage to grab a bunch of names in a new TLD, they're likely to change camps to the anti-expansion side to protect their investment by opposing any additional TLDs.
People who want a namespace that makes logical sense are a weak lobby compared to all the different self-interested groups.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
The ICANN agreements are posted publicly in their Web site. Are you claiming that the directors don't read their own site?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 5 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
