I have changed the subject. I will respond separately on the "tasting fee" issue. Michael Maranda ha scritto:
Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts were won in part by expectations of price decreases.
At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up our credibility through "productivity" first.
Just for the sake of precision, we did have clear words when this was decided, at the end of 2005: http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm Unfortunately, the new .com contract (which allows Verisign to unilaterally increase the registry price by 7% per year) was the result of a political/legal settlement, in which Verisign dropped lawsuits and agreed to support ICANN in exchange for this new contract. The Board at that time decided that it was the right thing to do, because it would ensure the corporation a steady source of revenue, eliminate legal risks, and other similar considerations. In my opinion, that situation only showed a big flaw of the "private governance model", in which an entity which should have the authority to act for the public good is forced not to do so because it lacks the insulation from business and legal pressures that a governmental authority would have, but that possibly is because I do not have the same kind of blind faith in commercial enterprises and in "market self-regulation" that many people at ICANN seem to have.
Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better?
If we want to say "we told you", I'm fine. That wouldn't have any practical effect, though - but perhaps would help in preventing similar situations from happening again. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------