Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus.
I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest?
Hmmm, let's see: 1) Does the entire new gTLD process have a consensus? 2) Did the IRT have a consensus? Was it developed in consultation with all GNSO constituencies? 3) ICANN unilaterally removed price caps from new gTLD contracts, a radical change. Who did they consult on removing those safeguards? I could go on and on, but it's Friday afternoon, and I think the absurdity of this all is abundantly clear. When stakeholders don't have any deep underlying philosophy and principles, but instead change positions on a line-by-line basis (whatever's to their own advantage at the time without any holistic view), it becomes a comedy, or perhaps a tragedy, or both. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/