Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Phil et al:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
>
> Rather too much is being made of this vote.  It was not intended to be a
> formal vote on constituency lines.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Rather too little is being made of this vote. The
NC majority blatantly disregarded a well-crafted and durable consensus item
because they didn't agree with it. In other words, they refused to accept the
product of an open, transparent working group constructed according to ICANN's
own rules. This has extremely significant implications for ICANN's DNSO future.

Worse -- much worse -- the incumbent monopolist in the gTLD registry business
floated a proposal for two new commercial TLDs, both of which would be co-owned
and/or operated by itself. That proposal, which was never placed before *any*
working group, and never debated and discussed by anyone outside of NSI, and
certainly never submitted for public comment, now sits on the *front page* of
the DNSO web site, in a position that is more prominent than the official report
of your own working group C.

Who made the decision to post that? Why? What gives Roger Cochetti, a spokesman
for the incumbent monopolist, the right to a privileged platform to promote
unreviewed and self-serving gTLD proposals?

Anyone can come up with proposals for new gTLDs. Several have already been put
before the WG. Why weren't they listed on the front page of the DNSO web
site?Given this abuse of procedure, I find your response to be disingenuous.

--MM