Association of National Advertisers: Difference between revisions
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
By not addressing these issues ANA has argued that ICANN is not working in the public interest, which is its mandate. As is, ANA believes that ICANN is affectively cornering brand owners in, whereby they must either pay high costs to run a TLD or risk brand dilution.<ref>[http://www.domainnews.com/en/association-of-national-advertisers-asks-icann-to-abandon-new-tlds.html Association of National Advertises ask ICANN to Abandon new TLDs, domainnews.com]</ref> | By not addressing these issues ANA has argued that ICANN is not working in the public interest, which is its mandate. As is, ANA believes that ICANN is affectively cornering brand owners in, whereby they must either pay high costs to run a TLD or risk brand dilution.<ref>[http://www.domainnews.com/en/association-of-national-advertisers-asks-icann-to-abandon-new-tlds.html Association of National Advertises ask ICANN to Abandon new TLDs, domainnews.com]</ref> | ||
===Community Response=== | ===ICANN & Community Response=== | ||
ICANN CEO, [[Rod Beckstrom]] has said that ICANN will “vigorously defend” its gTLD program and the multistakeholder model that created it, asserting that “its responsibility [is to the] broad public interest of the global Internet community, rather than to the specific interests of any particular group”.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/icann-responds-to-ana-criticism/2011/08/10/gIQAIork6I_blog.html ICANN Responds to ANA criticism, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> | |||
There has been little sympathy for ANA and CRIDO within the domain industry, even among those who are not supporters of the new [[gTLD]] program. It has been noted by numerous commentators, and even [[ICANN CEO]] [[Rod Beckstrom]], that ANA commented twice on previous drafts on the new gTLD guidebook. They were clearly aware of the program, but failed to create its very loud opposition campaign until about 6 months after the approval of the program, and just a few months before applications are to be accepted.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/11/14/why-crido-has-no-cred/ Why CRIDO has no cred, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> The fact is that ICANN had been producing the final program through its [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] for years, and produced a total of 6 draft guidebooks before approving the final version. ANA had the opportunity to participate in this process, as they knew about it, but chose to become only slightly involved.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/11/the-opposition-to-the-new-gtld-program-is-looking-like-the-fsc-vs-xxx-more-everyday/ The Opposition to the New gTLD Program is looking Like the FSC vs XX Everyday, TheDomains.com]</ref> | There has been little sympathy for ANA and CRIDO within the domain industry, even among those who are not supporters of the new [[gTLD]] program. It has been noted by numerous commentators, and even [[ICANN CEO]] [[Rod Beckstrom]], that ANA commented twice on previous drafts on the new gTLD guidebook. They were clearly aware of the program, but failed to create its very loud opposition campaign until about 6 months after the approval of the program, and just a few months before applications are to be accepted.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/11/14/why-crido-has-no-cred/ Why CRIDO has no cred, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> The fact is that ICANN had been producing the final program through its [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] for years, and produced a total of 6 draft guidebooks before approving the final version. ANA had the opportunity to participate in this process, as they knew about it, but chose to become only slightly involved.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/11/the-opposition-to-the-new-gtld-program-is-looking-like-the-fsc-vs-xxx-more-everyday/ The Opposition to the New gTLD Program is looking Like the FSC vs XX Everyday, TheDomains.com]</ref> | ||