Tall Paul doesn't seem a fan of ICANN either. Given that so many clued folks, some of them referenced in your excellent paper, many with longstanding histories in relevant areas, most with well deserved respect amongst their peers, don't much care for the status quo, that is, the centralized planning and regulation model of ICANN (made up in perhaps too large a part by clueless newcomers), I have to ask why it cannot simply be redone without them. Set up an alternative, perhaps farming back some responsibilities to those who did them previously and adequately.|
Is it a lack of knowledge or skill? Extremely doubtful. Is it a lack of will? If so, why wait a year for ICANN to again come up with excuses as to why it has made little progress (they'll blame too much process, whilst creating ever more intricate and inscrutable structures and functions), at which point an alternative will be needed, but Just In Time seems a bad way to do it. Is it a lack of funds? If so, initially charge $5 wholesale per *.gTLD, by your figures that would provide >$2 per sLD and still undercut ICANN. Or is it something else? If so, please advise. Given that so-many integral parts of ICANN are now so unimpressed with what we have, what is saying it cannot simply be duplicated with the dysfunctional (and probably unnecessary) parts not replaced (or if dysfunctional but necessary, swapped out)? If it is just for want of USG's blessing, well frankly, so what? If they're not part of the solution...
Now I know some folks have advocated such an approach for some time without much headway, but things are clearly going from bad to worse. At some point it may reach critical mass. Hopefully the Time to Organize headline on this article isn't just a pun. -g