Re: [ga] IRT Final Report Not Published by May 24, 2009
- To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] IRT Final Report Not Published by May 24, 2009
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
It appears ICANN now responds to my posts via their announcements page, instead
of this mailing list. See:
1. They closed the public comment period email address at:
(even though they extended their own timetable for deliverables unilaterally)
Who would be hurt by keeping the comment period open? (especially for those
monitoring the list archives) Perhaps this is a sign they're having trouble
keeping their "story" straight about the new "May 29" deadline, which was
supposedly agreed to on May 17 but which we're now hearing about only AFTER
it's been pointed out that they missed the deadline. The possibility of
"backdating" should not be excluded.
2. They moved the public comment archive quietly (and not documented anywhere)
(dropping the "p" after "irt") so that links to comments in the original forum
are now broken (e.g. my post on the BC mailing list at
has broken links now, as they linked to the original archives). ICANN staff did
so without adding any redirection to the new archive, e.g. via mod_rewrite or
.htaccess or even a simple static HTML page with a link to the new page. The
announcement with the old email address was simply edited, without any notes on
changes, etc. How many other ICANN documents get these silent changes that have
no revision history?
3. The ICANN announcement simply shifted the deliverables date to May 29, 2009
on the basis of a STAFF decision. The STAFF are overriding a BOARD resolution.
Isn't anyone else concerned when STAFF unilaterally override a BOARD decision?
Staff are supposed to implement the will of the Board, instead of dictating
changes themselves. Things are upside down in ICANN-land.
4. The ICANN announcement is completely at odds with their condescending and
paternalistic attitude in the May 1, 2009 statement posted on the IRT mailing
where they went out of their way to declare the deadlines to be BINDING and
unable to be changed.
"To summarize, the 6 May IRT deadline is constrained by reporting deadlines set
in the Board resolution and so cannot be extended..."
5. Why are no staff or IRT members being held accountable for the failures
above? If one misses a deadline in my world, one loses money, one loses one's
job, one loses business, etc. Where is the accountability? In ICANN-land, a
missed deadline equates to a GAIN of a few extra days of vacation-time.
The DOC/JPA Notice of Inquiry regarding the JPA has a deadline on June 8:
This matter will be yet another example of the lack of organizational
excellence at ICANN, and why the DOC/NTIA/DOJ need to exercise much greater
oversight in the future (or simply internalize the DNS function at the NTIA by
eliminating ICANN and ending the outsourcing contract).
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ga] IRT Final Report Not Published by May 24, 2009
> To: "GNSO GA Mailing List" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 9:09 AM
> Hi folks,
> According to the ICANN Board resolution that created the
> it was tasked to:
> "produce a final report to be published no later than 24
> May 2009"
> It is now May 27, 2009, and no final report has been made
> public either on ICANN's website, the comment forum,
> or on the IRT wiki:
> Assuming they have missed their deadline, while at the same
> time they imposed unrealistic deadlines upon companies and
> individuals not in the IRT to submit comments, I think it's
> safe to declare the entire process a complete and utter
> As a consensus does not exist on how to solve these and
> other overarching issues related to new gTLDs, the entire
> new gTLD program should be shelved so that the community no
> longer wastes valuable time and resources on doomed
> projects. ICANN needs to admit failure and move on, in order
> to preserve any last scintilla of legitimacy it imagines
> itself to possess. The community focus should instead be
> placed upon important matters like DNSSEC and IPv6. The
> NTIA/DOC/DOJ should give more direct instructions to ICANN
> in this regard to reiterate its past letters on new gTLDs:
> George Kirikos