Dear Kevin Murphy,
While your choice of phrasing—such as “throws a bone” and “stubborn”—is quite harsh, it is clear that this article was published without the actual, accurate context of the situation, much like the equally one-sided piece you published in 2019. I recently shared a comprehensive update regarding the .Internet application with about 75 ICANN Community leaders, ALAC chairs, and Internet pioneers. I deliberately chose not to include you or other members of the press in that distribution because Nameshop’s approach has always been cooperative and non-confrontational. We have no desire to use the press to mount a public pressure campaign against ICANN while the Board is actively reviewing our request. However, since you have chosen to publish a piece on the current status of our application, your readers deserve to know the actual facts. ICANN is not benevolently “throwing a bone” or offering an extension out of pity. The refund process was paused because Nameshop actively halted the automated portal procedure by placing a formal interim reply on the record and simultaneously escalating our request for immediate delegation directly to the ICANN Board Chair and CEO. The issue at hand does not concern an application fee or a refund; it concerns the .Internet string itself. I have forwarded the comprehensive letter currently before the Board and the Community directly to your email so you can see the fully documented, legally binding public interest commitments behind this 12-year application. I respectfully ask that you be thorough and fair by reviewing these facts and publishing Nameshop’s point of view with equal publicity. It is only right that the harm done by an adversarial and factually incomplete write-up is effectively corrected, so that the true cooperative nature and global public interest mission of .Internet becomes as widely known as your criticisms.
Sivasubramanian M
Nameshop, India
