I actually wonder why they need a "director" of something that probably should have been managed more like an RFC system. It's not like there has been much proven benefit from ICANN's oversight so far.
Imagine if it had been community-driven. For instance, someone proposes ".foobar" as a domain root. Various contributors then submit comments on the proposal, including suggestions on established groups that ought to manage that domain and what the limitations are on sites in the domain. Refinements are made (perhaps someone observes that ".foo" would be a term that is recognizable in more countries and something that avoids offending anyone). Finally a reasonable consensus is reached that having ".foo" is actually more valuable than not having it, and its guidelines are made public under "DNS RFC #613" or whatever. If that process can work for widespread things like protocols it can definitely work for deciding which domain roots are sensible. We don't need an ICANN.
Now if only Patrick L. Jones (Senior Manager of Continuity & Risk Management) would step aside. His involvement in the gTLD continually sides with "what's best for corporations and $$" rather than "what's best for the future of the internet" (which I would argue is ICANN's first responsibility.)
ICANN's appointment of Kurt Pritz actually bodes well for the future of the [seems to be a doomed endeavor] gTLD process, given his no-nonsense approach in the previous train wreck that was the .jobs TLD (http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann)
I'm guessing somebody needed to get shitcanned for the mailing address leak, lots of serious people must have kicked their dogs that day. Of all the things $185,000 can buy, apparently Security 101 ain't one of 'em.
Comments
I actually wonder why they need a "director" of something that probably should have been managed more like an RFC system. It's not like there has been much proven benefit from ICANN's oversight so far.
Imagine if it had been community-driven. For instance, someone proposes ".foobar" as a domain root. Various contributors then submit comments on the proposal, including suggestions on established groups that ought to manage that domain and what the limitations are on sites in the domain. Refinements are made (perhaps someone observes that ".foo" would be a term that is recognizable in more countries and something that avoids offending anyone). Finally a reasonable consensus is reached that having ".foo" is actually more valuable than not having it, and its guidelines are made public under "DNS RFC #613" or whatever. If that process can work for widespread things like protocols it can definitely work for deciding which domain roots are sensible. We don't need an ICANN.
Now if only Patrick L. Jones (Senior Manager of Continuity & Risk Management) would step aside. His involvement in the gTLD continually sides with "what's best for corporations and $$" rather than "what's best for the future of the internet" (which I would argue is ICANN's first responsibility.)
A list of Jones' gTLD involvement can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/jones.htm, and an quick example of his corporate-bias is at http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/msg00315....
ICANN's appointment of Kurt Pritz actually bodes well for the future of the [seems to be a doomed endeavor] gTLD process, given his no-nonsense approach in the previous train wreck that was the .jobs TLD (http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/11/dot-jobs-could-kill-icann)
I'm guessing somebody needed to get shitcanned for the mailing address leak, lots of serious people must have kicked their dogs that day. Of all the things $185,000 can buy, apparently Security 101 ain't one of 'em.
Salazar's linkedin page:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-salazar/3/136/314
I just hope he isn't setting up his own company after making the rules.
His job here is done.
ICANN, ICANT
[edit] In all seriousness though, is there any actual news about the specifics of why he resigned?
There were some very shady deals around the hundreds of new TLDs.