ICANN’s .Net Registry Agreement: ICA Responds with Deep Concerns

Kamila SekiewiczBlog, ICANN, Uncategorized 2 Comments

Monday, June 26, 2023, ICANN published its report of the Public Comments regarding the Proposed .Net Registry Agreement.

Yesterday, the ICA responded to it with a letter to ICANN’s Board of Directors, expressing its concern and dismay of what the ICA considers a “Policy Wash”.

You can read the entire letter, here.

Comments 2

  1. Surely many are depressed and frustrated by apparent collusion between ICANN & Verisign.

    The Public Comment Summary Report is a classic example of how a devious Secretariat can whitewash a process by writing up notes or meeting minutes to fit their desired scenario — ignoring or belittling certain uncomfortable topics.

    It’s as if we are peon living in a company town, in a banana republic – we’re ignored & abused by bosses. What recourse exists against the anti-competitive practices allowed & encouraged by ICANN? Class action lawsuit? Are there violations of antitrust laws? Could the California Attorney-General or European Union competition law address these issues?

  2. ICANN’s Public Comment Summary Report is a classic example of Secretariat whitewash: writing up notes (or meeting minutes) to fit a desired scenario — ignoring & belittling uncomfortable topics. Fortunately, an interested & dispassionate investigation could review the 57 submissions to the proposed .NET Registry Agreement to confirm how the purported summary is biased or negligent. Two topics I brought up are ignored.

    One concern is too little VeriSign investment in promoting IDN (so-called International Domain Names) which might ease global accessibility and localization gaps.

    But the more glaring deficiency is that the present system lacks true security and stability by wholly relying upon a single supplier: no effort is made to designate any alternative operators or reserve contractors. Realistic contingency planning by ICANN should have redundant back-up suppliers poised to potentially takeover the contract in the event of disaster [which, for example, could include non-technical but disqualifying moral lapses by VeriSign management, or exposure of some toxic dimension within their corporate culture]. Beyond any supposition, ICANN “invites the community to comment” – but manages to erase this clearly-stated shortcoming from their summary & comments.

    Backup promotes security, stability, and safety; the no-bid monopoly given to VeriSign is difficult to justify.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *