I can't tell you how many times over the last week I've heard members
of the ICANN Board ask for "specific" or "concrete" comments on the new .COM Registry
Agreement and the proposed settlement. It only occurred to me at the
airport why that's not possible. First, this is a bilateral agreement
which needs Verisign's consent. I can make a lot of "specific" comments
and revisions, but unless I know what Verisign will accept, if
anything, my comments aren't worth a lot. Second, and more importantly,
the contract represents a shift in the way ICANN thinks about itself, registries and registrars, and its method of funding. Those are
conceptual issues. The "specific comments" one would make turn on how
those conceptual issues are resolved.
When members of the community ask for more time, they're not asking for
additional days to read and red-line the posted agreements. That's
easy. They're asking for more time to consider the conceptual issues
ICANN has posed in the new contract and the proposed settlement. The
fact that the Board seems not to understand that it has asked a complex
question is troubling.
|
||||||
"Specific Comments"
Comments
Re: "Specific Comments"
by
Veni Markovski
on Sat 03 Dec 2005 09:31 PM PST | Profile | Permanent Link
Bret,
sorry but I disagree. I've expressed several times my opinion "live" in Vancouver. You can be part of the problem, part of the solution or part of the landscape. Since we know what the problem is (?), then give us a solution. I don't think you want to be part of the landscape - if you wanted, you wouldn't be blogging so much:) But there's always a danger that you may become part of it, if you keep on not providing solutions. The key here is the solution. Re: "Specific Comments"
by
Bret Fausett
on Sun 04 Dec 2005 02:17 PM PST | Profile | Permanent Link
Veni, thanks for the comment. We seem to be talking past each other. What problem was ICANN trying to solve by giving Verisign the ability to raise prices, sell TLD metadata and retain .COM forever? Until I know what problem ICANN thinks it is solving, I don't know how to give you an answer that would be helpful. I don't believe that the problem was simply the threat of litigation. I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe that ICANN was bound to win that litigation. Was it the funding issue? ICANN hasn't invoiced the registrars in six months.
This conversation goes both ways. The Board was very quick to say that it was in "listening mode" in Vancouver. I didn't realize until I returned home that this hid the fact that the Board wasn't talking about what it had done to bring us to this point. If you detect anger and frustration in my comments, you're right. Transparency would solve many of these problems. So that's my specific, concrete answer: bulid transparency into all aspects of ICANN's work. Is ICANN asking a question to which that might be a response? Bret Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
||||||

