Just a few hours after it was made public that the ".travel" agreement had been signed and the registy operator had been sold, I received my first response [hasbrouck.org] from ICANN to (some of) my requests on ".travel".

It doesn't mention my request for a stay pending indpendent review. It is interesting for giving a picture of how ICANN's General Counsel interprets the meaning of "maximum extent feasible" of openness and transparency.

OK, I'll bite. Some of what you say actually hits home or at least has, as they used to say in SillyConValley, resonance. So instead of posting all these cryptic screeds (if I don't get some of your more obtuse references I doubt anyone else will, including the future archeologists you seem to be addressing, now that's argumentum ad novitatem, to whose sorry lot is left sifting out these bits), why don't you just cut down on the redundant Postel conspiracy repetitiveness, add some propellerhead details about why I should believe Cisco has built something better than a new.net plugin or something heavy enough to be a boat anchor, create and reroute a premiss to point to a conclusion, submit it as a new ICW article (and therefore not so terribly offtopic), and be done with it. An ability to code selectable HTML links and a slightly more nuanced sense of humour than Mike Roberts would also not be found amiss. -g