The debate over the amendments to the RAA has revealed a fundamental tension between those that want the domain name industry to be self-regulated and those that see that self-regulation never goes far enough, is replete with loopholes that a truck could be driven through, and invariably fails to adequately protect consumer interests. While calls for increased compliance and enforcement measures have been echoing throughout ICANN's chambers, there continues to be an ongoing reticence on the part of ICANN Staff to do anything that would actually ruffle the feathers of those that are the direct source of its ever-increasing income. Sadly, ICANN has made its bed with the proponents of the self-regulatory model while the rest of the world has come to realize the need for a much stronger regulatory hand at work. This is why we cheer when we read the bold remarks of the NTIA -- that organization, like many of us, wants ICANN to function as an ethical and forthright "manager" of the DNS rather than as the neutered lapdog of the domain name industry cartel -- it seeks an entity in charge that has the public interest (not the contracted party interest) uppermost in its mind. Unfortunately, ICANN has become so accustomed to offering up only lip-service to public concerns, so comfortable with the PR and spin processes, that we can no longer consider it to be the "honest broker" or "coordinator" of the DNS that we all wanted when the DNS Project was initiated. ICANN has been captured by the contracted parties. That is the reality... and it is a reality that stands starkly at odds with the notion of multi-stakeholderism. ... and this is why we have seen such outrage with regard to the new gTLD implementation phase. The business world has come to realize that base contracts are being drafted that only serve the needs of ICANN and its contracted parties. The RAA is yet another perfect example of this. What is needed is the continued expression of outrage. It is we, the community, that should be setting the rules for the registrars and the registries to follow; not the other way around. When you hire a worker to do a job, does the worker get to call the shots, to set all the rules? Of course not -- the worker is the hired help that needs to behave himself properly if he wants to retain his employment. The RAA amendments exemplify industry self-regulation -- which is why they suck. In the long run you will need to ask yourself this question: can you manage a sustained long-term fight against a cartel aided and abetted by ICANN Staff to continue protecting those that you represent against a series of abuses that will always follow in the wake of the exploitation of new contract loopholes, or are you better off fighting for a stronger multi-stakeholder regulatory regime that can manage the registries and registrars in much the same manner as telecommunications carriers are managed today? The self-regulatory approach is not working. That model needs to be replaced by a multi-stakeholder model where the public writes the contracts that the registrars and registries will necessarily follow. The way that ICANN is managing the process is bass-ackwards. It has to be changed.