You are right when you say that ICANN has a multitude of interests to consider and you are also right when you point to the best solution for ensuring that ICANN’s decisions do not stray off in any particular favoured direction as being “responsive to logical arguments and receptive to constructive criticism”.

I hope that the staff are able to demonstrate effectively that that is what we try to achieve day-in and day-out. In the case of the Applicant Guidebook, I can assure you that all the feedback is taken seriously and that it is being used as the basis for changes to the guidebook and for the next round of discussion and review by the community itself.

A great deal of consideration is being given to the feedback provided so far – including the “the negative implications of far reaching decisions & proposals” as you put it. Not to mention the huge amount of collective thought has gone into getting where we are now, having been through two extensions of the domain name system previously.

There is a lot work being done as we speak on making sure this process goes forward with the full confidence of the community and you will be in a position to judge whether that is up-to-par in the documents, explanatory memoranda and public meetings that are soon to follow.

Most importantly though if you want to help ensure that the balance of influence is maintained throughout ICANN’s processes, you need to get personally involved. If you send in a comment, it is read and considered and balanced against other views and approaches. If you don’t send in a comment, it is not there to be a part of the balance.

A second public comment period will open on the materials provided to the community prior to the Mexico City meeting on 1-6 March. And there will be a large discussion through Mexico City about the Applicant Guidebook (as well as other subjects). I encourage to come if you can, or if not to follow events and interact and participate online on at http://mex.icann.org/.

If you have any questions or queries about participating, just ask, anytime.

Thanks again for your comment.

Kieren

The importance of the comment process must be upheld, because without it, ICANN’s decisions would be sometimes skewed in the wrong direction. As a domain name investor and developer, my greatest fear is that ICANN will act unilaterally in such a way that my investment and years of labor will be diminished through a single bad decision.

I appreciate that ICANN have a multitude of interests to consider and that many of their decisions have levels of complexity that are not easy to untangle.

As long as ICANN are responsive to logical arguments and remain receptive to constructive criticism, then I believe they will be effective at managing the DNS and will receive substantial support from the internet community.

In reading the posts and requests of various registries (in the Applicant Guidebook), I am convinced and certain that some registries would eagerly advance their own status and gains at the collective expense of individual domain registrants. ICANN are the exclusive body entrusted to keep these potential abuses from seeing the light of day. Such as gTLD registries aiming to have price caps removed from their existing registry agreements.

Respectfully, the internet community often defer to ICANN’s best judgement and integrity in sorting through matters of extreme importance. However, the multiple gTLD proposal, as was designed, raised serious questions about ICANN’s reasoning. When the general community can raise such clear and legitimate concerns about this proposal, it leaves one wondering why ICANN cannot identify these potential problems on their own.

It is these types of glaring omissions that denigrate ICANN’s support and reputation. For me personally, I begin to question underlying financial motives and backdoor ICANN allegiances that would contradict ICANN’s onus of objectivity and fair representation of all constituents and internet stakeholders.

In other words, please take the time to consider the negative implications of far reaching decisions & proposals. In the absence of this ability, then keep public commentary as an essential element in the ICANN process.

Thanks.