On 16 Oct 2009, at 16:35, David Conrad wrote:
Can you provide a reason (other than "because I don't like it") that ICANN shouldn't abide by the decision of the open, bottom-up policy development process of the GNSO?
You answer that question yourself David. See 1) below.
Two points:
1) many folks in the technical community refuse to get involved in ICANN policy deliberations because they believe it's that icky non- technical political stuff. Unfortunately, this can lead to a lack of technical input into those deliberations, resulting in decisions that can be skewed towards business or political considerations. If the technical community believes a certain outcome would be sub- optimal, I would strongly encourage members of that community to get more involved in policy discussions.
What's the point in engaging in a policy discussion about new gTLDs now? That debate appears to be over. You seem to be implying that the decision about that has already been taken -- ie ICANN abiding by the decision the gNSO has reached. Or are you saying that if the technical community says to ICANN (how?) "we think it's a Bad Idea to have lots of new TLDs", ICANN will be receptive to those representations? I think it's not unreasonable to say that although the ICANN processes try to be open, they made/make it difficult for the technical community to participate in a meaningful way. BTW this was one of the reasons why RIPE's "sign the root" declaration in 2007 was sent as a letter to the ICANN CEO and Chairman. There was no obvious ICANN forum which could receive it or act on it. I've been to more ICANN meetings than I'd care to admit to and, apart from Suzanne's board postition, have trouble remembering any DNS operators or implementers who attended them. [Mind you, the copious amounts of beer needed to get through those weeks may have been a contributing factor.] The few technical people who do engage with ICANN on a regular basis usually have their hands tied in one way or another: say membership of an ICANN committee/task force or their employer has a vested interest in seeing new TLDs. Speaking personally, I knew there was no point in advancing a case for fewer new TLDs (not zero) at the gNSO because (a) I'd get shouted down; (b) the other side of the debate could string things out with a battle of attrition until I gave up or ran out of funding; (c) the day job wouldn't allow me to spend time on unproductive and resource- draining ICANN participation. If it was a choice between paying the mortgage and walking around ICANN meetings wearing a sign saying "kick me!", what would you do?