I'm still reading their letter dated yesterday, but it's wonderful to see that they appear to see that ICANN is going in the wrong direction on new gTLDs:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf

More from Reuters at:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/techno...BrandChannel=0

Highlights:

"it is unclear that the threshold question of whether the potential consumer benefits outweigh the potential costs.......ICANN needs to complete this economic study...before new gTLDs are introduced" (page 1)

"Revise the gTLD approval process, the applicant guidebook and the proposed registry agreement to: ...... (3) impose maximum price caps or other terms that would redound to the benefit of consumers in those cases where competitive bidding mechanisms will not adequately limit the ability of registry operators to exercise market power" (page 2)

(still reading)

"As a result, although new gTLDs may generate some consumer benefits, ICANN should take additional steps to ensure that the process of creating new gTLDs incorporates to the maximum extent possible competition-based mechanisms and also imposes other constraints on the exercise of market power by gTLD operators." (page 5)

"The Division makes two specific recommendations. First, ICANN's general approach to new gTLDs should be revised to give greater consideration to consumer interests. .... Second, the RFP process and proposed registry agreement should include provisions that would enable ICANN to constrain new registry operators from exercising market power. In particular, ICANN should establish competitive mechanisms for authorizing new gTLDs and renewals of gTLD registry agreements whereby prospective gTLD operators would compete for gTLDs by proposing registry terms -- including maximum fee schedules -- that would provide consumer benefits." (page 5)

I hope they use that to reopen the VeriSign .com agreement to force a tender process!

wow now that is good news

Indeed, I'm still in shock at how wonderful the government put it. It's vindication for all who've opposed ICANN's brain-damaged policies over the years.

BTW, if anyone wants to thank the DOJ for their letter, antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov appears to be the appropriate general email for them:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/garzabio.htm

I already sent mine. [might be wise to put ATTN: Deborah Garza in the subject or something so that it gets routed to her]

Thank you for the news George. This is good to hear.

I just posted the following to the ICANN GA mailing list (might appear in a few hours over there):

Just to followup, the US government has totally vindicated those who've opposed ICANN's brain damaged attempts to introduce new gTLDs. Some apt quotes from the letter:

"Contrary to ICANN's apparent assumption" (page 4) is a diplomatic way of saying "ICANN has it completely wrong"

"ICANN's general approach to new gTLDs should be revised to give greater consideration to consumer interests." (page 5) is yet another diplomatic way of saying that ICANN has been captured by registry interests, and has failed its mission.

All their other comments like price caps should have been obvious, tender processes, elimination of presumptive renewal etc. were things that people have been trying to tell ICANN for years.

ICANN ignores this at their peril. Now is the perfect time for ICANN's Board to fire the incompetent staff who generated these documents, as we suggested in our posted comments. And ICANN's Board better watch their step too ---- there's no assurance that their JPA will ever be renewed, if they keep making such major mistakes in the future.

I look forward to seeing a much leaner and humbler ICANN in 2009, as a result of this spanking by the US government, one that listens to consumers and not just registry operators. This is not something their PR department can "spin", but should be a humiliating defeat of their management. The honourable course would be for the responsible individuals to tender their resignations, but firings for cause (without severance pay) are fine with me. For ICANN to regain the confidence of those in the community, it's time that they clean house, and admit their failure.

Excellent news George - many thanks for keeping us all aware of these important developments.

Anybody want to start a pool as to when the root gets split and thus ICANN is no longer relevant?

At that point new TLDs will be added and the US gov will have no say in anything about it.

Originally posted by GeorgeK
BTW, if anyone wants to thank the DOJ for their letter, antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov appears to be the appropriate general email for them:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/garzabio.htm

I already sent mine. [might be wise to put ATTN: Deborah Garza in the subject or something so that it gets routed to her]

Just sent a letter of acknowledgement and appreciation. Thanks for the email link.

Great news, George. Thanks for sharing.

that was a fantastic read.

Amusingly, ICANN just posted on their blog that there will be a revised version of the new gTLD guidebook in 2009:

http://blog.icann.org/2008/12/applic...period-update/

They must have their heads in the sand, given what the DOC and DOJ told them. It would be a sign of suicidal tendencies if they go off the reservation and produce a revised guidebook before doing the relevant economic studies and further consultation with the community. I'm sure the DOC and DOJ would have no issues yanking the root management role from them if ICANN decides to go rogue.

Originally posted by GeorgeK
I'm sure the DOC and DOJ would have no issues yanking the root management role from them if ICANN decides to go rogue.

And what would Verisign think of ICANN being out of the way?