Fwd: sTLD beauty contest - bad process

[Adam Peake]

try again

>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:27:56 +0900
>To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: sTLD beauty contest - bad process
>
>
>Susan Crawford describes problems with the sTLD process very well.
>Hope this can be discussed during the constituency meeting and
>people will comment during the public forum.  Vint Cerf in 2000 said
>the process felt like sitting on a venture capital board, this time
>around seems worse.
>
>Susan mentions two concerns, I'm just copying one below, see
><http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2004/2/20/21777.html>.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>Concerns about ICANN's direction
>
>by Susan at 05:19PM (EST) on February 20, 2004 | Permanent Link
>
>Two recent (or upcoming) ICANN moments should cause concern.
>First, the sTLD beauty contest. The application requirements for
>these sTLDs make it seem as if registries are applying for venture
>funding rather than a string. Take a look, particularly at the
>financial and business plan requirements. Headcounts down to the
>mailroom. Travel plans. It's as if ICANN has hired an investment
>banker to look into these plans. ICANN has no special competency in
>any of these areas, and it would make much more sense -- and fit
>ICANN's limited role so much better -- if ICANN had a neutral third
>party develop minimum technical/financial standards. ICANN could
>then then roll TLDs (not sponsored, not unsponsored, just TLDs) out
>as applications came in and were approved.
>
>(rest not inc.)
>
>--
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20040227/6e9152e4/attachment.html>