The problem is that DoC knows perfectly well why those commitments are not in the registry agreement -- it is because the registry agreement they are criticizing is not the final one. The registry contract, established in June 2005, was already subject to a September 2005 directive from the ICANN Board “to discuss possible additional contractual provisions or modifications for inclusion in the .XXX Registry Agreement, to ensure that there are effective provisions requiring development and implementation of policies consistent with the principles in the ICM application." It's difficult if not impossible for ICM to move ahead on any of these issues until the GAC and the USG stop threatening to veto the whole domain. As ICM Registry's Stuart Lawley wrote in response, "ICM understands that much of the hard work of building a sponsored top-level domain for responsible adult webmasters lies ahead. It is, however, unrealistic to expect the community to undertake this significant work, and for ICM to fund it, in advance of ICANN’ s ratification of the proposed registry agreement. No other sTLD has been asked to do so."

To prepare this letter, someone at NTIA spent 8 hours or more combing through ICM Registry's December 2005 presentation to the GAC and its June registry contract -- despite the fact that the analysis has no significance other than for its propaganda value before the GAC. Don't you wish someone at Commerce would pay this much attention to all the commitments and promises ICANN makes, and publicly hold them accountable?