WWWhatsup wrote:
Both of Evan's points below seem self-evident.
Hardly, since they're still being argued.
But I don't see that there's such a great danger - all they are saying is that they'll open up a few non-controversial gTLDs to get the process going.. Please indicate .... ANYWHERE ... any wording that can be interpreted to indicate such intent. The objection process is intended to be neither temporary nor transitional.
I guess 'consensus' means following the path of least resistance.
Which invariably means conceding doing the right thing, in order to appease the business community and trademark lawyers. Of course, if ICANN really cares about consensus building, it should stay away completely from issues of morality in which any arbitration will necessarily be uncompromising and divisive.
Once things are underway, given the obvious problems of administering morality, one suspects that path will involve a sharp u-turn.
This writer offers no such suspicion. I have no basis upon which to be optimistic that ICANN is be capable of identifying such folly, let alone be willing -- or able -- to reverse itself. This is especially true given the zest with which ICANN staff have shown in their desire to implement the arbitration procedures. They are either oblivious to the "obvious problems" or feel secure in their ability to ride roughshod over them. Undoing the damage will be even harder than preventing it in the first place. - Evan