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.
But it's as if we are peon living in a company town, in a banana republic, being 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 help correct these issues?
