In article <001101beb816$7b69b8b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37856,00.html
> It is worthy to note that ALL the delays can be laid at ICANN's
> door-step. They were extremely lax in getting the list of potential
> registrars to NSI.
At the request of the registrars, the ICANN waited for more information
about pricing and the conditions. However, that information only became
available at the very last moment. This was publicly posted on the
ICANN website.
So blaming ICANN for the delays presumes:
(1) That NSI was in its right to wait until the very last moment before
releasing information about pricing and conditions, that businesses
do not need to make business plans and calculations before they
jump in.
(2) That the ICANN was wrong to wait before releasing the names of the
test-bed registrars, that NSI needed the names of the registrars
far in advance for some obscure reason. The only reason why NSI
would need to know the names of the registrars was to supply them
with the Shared Registry Information. But it has been published
in the press that NSI failed to supply this information to at least
one testbed registrar weeks after the test-bed had begun. And NSI
could have provided an open Shared Registry System, instead of all
those silly NDAs.
(3) You know why the the moment that the list of potential registrars
was released is the reason of the delays. If that is true you are
inside information. This is information that the registrars
may not even publish since they are under a heavy NDA.
In other words, laying the blame for the delays at ICANN's door-step
is totally unreasonable. But this is just another small example of the
total lack of reason that is coming from the opponents of the ICANN.
Like just grabbing and claiming TLDs and then barking against any
public process that may interfere with 'their' TLDs.
Like blasting the membership committee for being too inclusive and
suggesting a free membership after demanding a general membership
and bitching at the high costs of participating in the ICANN meetings.
Like demanding a DNSO with only individual membership or a non-commercial
constituency without ISOC.
Like blaming ICANN for making policy without being fully accountable,
while not talking about how NSI is making policy while being fully
unaccountable.
Like throwing Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker from the IDNO mailinglist
when all the other mailinglists put up with the likes of Jeff Williams,
Bob Allisat and Jim Fleming.
I can't blame ICANN for trying to keep such unreasonable people out,
although I doubt whether that is the right way. The MoU side is also
not always reasonable, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed
man is king.
> However, I also see NSI trying to do some positive things.
Like what? Like selling private information of the registrants
without giving the registrants an opportunity to opt-out? Like
turning the neutral internic.net site into a a giant dot-com-people
commercial one month before the registrar side competition was
to begin? Like arbitrarily changing the whois output without
advance warning? Like requiring heavy NDAs from competing
registrars? Like making it almost impossible to change
registrars? Like promising the IDNO a gTLD constituency
seat when NSI knew that it could not deliver?
> For Esther to try and turn these into negatives does not speak well
> for the process. It firmly places the ICANN into the NSI-bashers club.
> I believe that is an inappropriate place, for an organization that
> purports itself to be the Internet governance platform of choice.
NSI is doing wrong. ICANN has every right to say so, and to put
pressure on the US DoC to make the registrar side competition more
than a sham. Are you saying that the ICANN should be an organization
like the UN, an organization that can't bash China when China is
wiping its ass with the declaration of human rights again?
No thanks.
--
Onno Hovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
