[bc-gnso] Re: IRT Final Report Not Published by May 24, 2009

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed May 27 18:29:10 UTC 2009

Hi folks,

Just to followup on this morning's post, it appears ICANN now responds
to my posts (which had also been sent separately to the GA mailing
list) via their announcements page. 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) from




(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 list:


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


George Kirikos

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:41 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
> Hi folks,
> According to the ICANN Board resolution that created the IRT:
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07
> 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,
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/
> or on the IRT wiki:
> https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protection
> 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 failure.
> 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:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list