|
Here is a good example of the symbiotic relationship that exists between
ICANN and the DNS Supply industry (Registries and Registrars). In a post this
week to the Registrars Mailing List, Jason Hendeles wrote as follows:
"I for one see no reason at this time to approve any increase in fees...
It's time we send ICANN a clear message that we need new revenue opportunities
in order to justify any increase in fees. The last time ICANN did anything
positive for our constituency was when they authorized the creation of new
domains for the registrars to market. That was almost 3 years ago... I
think the registrars should take this opportunity to apply pressure to ICANN to
open up the process for releasing new domain names... I think that we should
reject any increase until something tangible is given back to our
constituency.
Jason Hendeles A Technology Company, Inc." In other words, the belief that an objective way forward on extending the
namespace for the public good can be compromised by applying financial pressure
on ICANN, which is heavily dependent on the Registrar community for
revenue.
The allocation of the previous NewTLDs greatly favoured people like Ken
Stubbs who were closely involved with ICANN, in favouring what could be called
the 'insider' bid of the Registrars' Cartel who were granted .info ... in
addition to this, when the public protested at the abuse of process and the
profit-making that occurred during the moneyfest that was the launch of .info
and .biz, ICANN refused to intervene and some registrars got away with daylight
robbery.
Jason Hendeles' own company was involved in the very short lists
submitted by a few registrars to exploit registrar privilege by gaining
advantage over the general public in the round-robin exercises through
which desirable domains were released. Now he seems to be calling for ICANN
to be pressurised into decisions on the basis of a financial hold he seems
to think the Registrars have over ICANN.
ICANN's selection of NewTLDs has attracted real concerns; ICANN's
evaluation of the NewTLDs has appeared amateurish and unaccountable;
ICANN's policy on further NewTLDs has seemed arbitrary; its restrictions on who
can apply in the next round of gTLDs seems arbitrary and
unreasonable.
How can we rely on ICANN to make decisions in the interests of the broader
public if it is dependent for money on registrars like Mr Hendeles who see
that dependency as a negotiating weapon for putting private profit first.
ICANN is supposed to be Not-For-Profit and its decisions must reflect
that.
Mr Hendeles : go and sell hot-dogs! Leave internet governance
alone!
And ICANN: no-one will trust you as long as you have this dependent
symbiotic relationship with Registries and Registrars.
* * *
Yrs,
Richard H
|