The continued existence of ICP-3 may not entirely be a bad thing, given that the newest burning issue that ICANN must deal with is apparently Keywords and Other Non-DNS Identifiers. Say what? Are there no other issues that might be more important, like whether there has been any progress made on the security matters that were yesterday's burning issues; or the issue of expiring names, the WLS et al; or the issue of the new TLD rollout causing losses through fraud, perhaps into the millions of dollars, some of it by ICANN accredited registrars; or just how the Board, and SO's, will be constituted, some of which is time-sensitive, or...? |
Well, if this is the new agenda (did anyone see any bottom up consensus calling for it?), it is hard to imagine the topic of new.net won't come up, and ICP-3 might yet be a double edged sword. While it trashes alt-roots and even "pseudo-top-level domain name registries", and refers to Kent Crispin's now stale-dated internet draft which specifically uses new.net as an example, clearly new.net (and RealNames and suchlike) aren't within ICANN's purview, there is nothing within ICP-3 to support a contrary notion, and ICP-3 is now the law, as it were. By over-reaching perhaps ICANN has limited its range of motion.
And perhaps I'm reading this all wrong, Karl Auerbach states in his Dec. 2001 diary entry on the IDN Committee:
Director Mueller-Maguhn and myself have accepted an informal board request to create a document that describes the distinction between names as entered by users into the address bar of Microsoft's Internet Explorer and names as expressed as domain names. The purpose of this document would be to begin to delineate some of the limits of ICANN's responsibilities. Much as I think there are more pressing issues, if ICANN wants to give Karl and Andy top billing while they attempt to put ICANN on a short leash, this might not be a total waste of time. ICP-3 as written supports the short leash model. -g