ICANN suffers split-personality disorder as deadline for .org sale decision draws close With just seven days left until it has to make a decision on the $1.13bn sale of the .org registry to a private equity firm, DNS overseer ICANN appears in chaos. In a series of communications from senior executives, ICANN has embarked on a public negotiation with potential buyer Ethos Capital over the sale of the domain, while …
What a naive sentiment.
In the world we live in, all that counts is the almighty dollar. ICANN's actions do not in any way seem to be looking at principles. Instead they seem to be trying to create a minimally acceptable story to justify their taking the money.
Given that the transaction is financially neutral for ICANN (until renewal time comes up, when the whole contract for .org enters an open season) and given that what they are actually discussing are the “public interest commitments”, I'm not sure what the factual basis of your accusation might be.
Not that ICANN is squeaky clean in general, but we are talking about this specific transaction, in which ICANN is not directly involved except as an overseer.
The issue is not the financial benefit of ICANN, but that ICANN may be operating for the financial benefit of organizational insiders, such as current and former board members.
This could be illegal, look at the case of the severance payments to the head of SADD.
The issue is not the financial benefit of ICANN, but that ICANN may be operating for the financial benefit of organizational insiders, such as current and former board members or their relatives.
This could be illegal, look at the case of the severance payments to the head of SADD.
"In the world we live in, all that counts is the almighty dollar."
But the regulation of internet names is not a business with an open market fostering competition. ICANN supervises a monopoly that controls access. When they allow companies to extract rent from this system then this creates zero beneficial value for society.
It is akin to highway robbery - somebody gets rich by extracting value from everyone traveling on the streets. Or maybe I am unfair here, because those registrar companies actually invest in the internet infrastructure. So it's more like selling a monopoly on placing street signs - together with the right to tax all traffic at unregulated level.
This whole story about the org sale just illustrates that the system is broken. Street signs are part of the road infrastructure but should not make an insane profit for somebody. And it doesn't become right even if the proceeds go towards otphan homes, all the saints, and your favorite animal shelter.
It is naive to assume that there will be any "facts" in relation to corrupt practices. However, the transaction structure provides a series of facts, each of which constitute a red flag from an anti-bribery perspective: sale of a global monopoly to a private entity which refuses to divulge who controls it, with no control over pricing of the monopoly and no transparency of what profits will be made nor how they will be applied. The staff of ICANN are in favour of the sale whilst those who will be forced to provide the revenues are against it.
That series of red flags leads to the initial conclusion that it appears likely that there is corruption involved in this transaction.
Normally, red flags can be explained if the deal is free form corrupt practices. So............. are there any "facts" to counter the assumptions above?
Nice theory. Any facts?
The opacity created by the shell company structure is a quite solid fact. Why go to such length to hide the men behind the business? Well, there would be the one obvious explanation offered by the original post.
Just because graft is hard to prove doesn't justify that ICANN closes both eyes and waves the transaction through. Maybe they should take their responsibilities seriously -- and stay aware of how their public image might be affected. Trust is easily lost but hard to earn.
I propose we throw the whole lot of them out, and recreate a new domain registry owned by the UN. Any profit from registrations could fund famine relief around the world. And they could grant license fees based upon the value added of the organization requesting the domain.
Of course, since no plutocrat would get money that'll absolutely never happen...
Given how much time Ethos Capital's supporters have had to put their case to demonstrate how their proposed arrangements satisfy the "public Interest" requirement - yet have failed to do so, says one thing -very clearly and very loudly: the deal isn't in the public interest.
Which means that ICAAN should be firing all board members who are involved in Ethos Capital for gross misconduct...
But then if ICAAN are dithering, it suggests that ICAAN is lacking in commonsense and probably also says a lot about the state of corporate America.
As a domain name investor and part of n number of discussions related to ICANN on namePros, I believe that ICANN stands as a trusted authority among the investors. Any negative news which even remotely brings out non-transparency or politics or whatever we call this, is going to reflect badly on ICANN as a whole. This is one body we look up to, to make the right decisions for the industry as a whole (whether change in prices or anything else).
Such things doesn't reflect properly on its credibility!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
