Beckstrom responds to advertising group with strongly worded letter.
Beckstrom informs IANA that “The assertions in your letter are either incorrect or problematic in several respects.”
He stresses that the program is the culmination of work with every stakeholder in the ICANN process including 45 public comment periods (one of which ANA submitted comments for).
Your letter also claims that the program represents “unrestricted expansionâ€ or allows “virtually any word or phrase.â€ These statements demonstrate a lack of understanding of Program details. More research on your part would have revealed: (i) restrictions on delegation rates; (ii) string requirements and limitations; (iii) required applicant background, financial and technical qualifications; (iv) objection processes for infringing and other inappropriately applied-for strings; and (v) standing registry operator obligations in the registry agreement.
He then explains actions ICANN took that address all five of ANA’s concerns it submitted during public comment periods.
And for a closing salvo, Beckstrom informs ANA that it isn’t scared about legal posturing:
Please be advised that ICANN will vigorously defend the multi-stakeholder model and the hard-fought consensus of its global stakeholder participants, its duty to act in accordance with established bottom-up processes, and its responsibility to the broad public interest of the global Internet community, rather than to the specific interests of any particular group.