[discuss] Options for root zone

Sun Jan 19 16:21:04 UTC 2014

On 19-Jan-14 10:29, Veni Markovski wrote:
> As someone, who has been involved in the whole process since the
> beginning of this case (it started on June 18, 2008, with a letter
> <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/vatchkov-to-twomey-18jun08-en.pdf>
> of the Bulgarian minister to Paul Twomey), and commenting in my personal
> capacity, as my signature below states, I'd like to bring some light to
> this question, as it seems to continue to be discussed, and with more
> and more interpretations, which go farther and farther from the facts.

Has the report on which the descson was made ever been released?

I was lightly involved in some free consulting with the applicants, and 
was unbelieving when I first saw the decision  When I asked I received 
very cogent explanation from those who worked on the report.  I am not 
sure I bought all of the arguments, but they had merit qua arguments.

The problem was that at the time, and perhaps still, the report was 
redacted, eliminating further analysis.  Now this was before the new 
gTLD process and those there could have all kinds of reasons for 
redacting given the utter paranoia about being played within ICANN.

Is there still reason for the report being secret?  Perhaps it has been 
released and I just don't know since my attention wandered once the 
applicants decided to give up that fight and move on to something they 
knew they could get.

In any case, if we want to use this as a case study of something, we 
need move beyond speculation as to what their motives, other that type 
of font, might have been.

Note: On the Tunis Agenda.  It is a marvelous document, but it was drawn 
up by Governments for Governments with just a little comment from the 
non-governmental actors. It should be seen as a draft the 
government-actors bring to the discussion of their opening position.

avri