Lets have the United Nations run the ICANN function and make everybody happy. As far as non-US entities running the Net Registry that seems like the only choice in fact it should be one of the standards non-US entities cannot provide registry services. The ICANN agreement with Verisign should have been a matter or treaty not contract. ICANN should become a treaty organization administered by the United Nations. I'm sure the treaty will never be ratified by the US government and this would preclude any US entity from participation or use of the facilities. Since the constitution of the United States does not empower the Department of Commerce to ratify treaties or contract without congressional approval in a true legal sense they should have no issue nor should they have any input. What does the EU, China, India, or any other nation thats users will use the .Net Registry think? I'm sure that the registry industry is US based for the most part and has influenced the government for its purposes, but that does not mean that a rally against the US influence cannot be mounted. I suggest a strong effort to remove US entities from any organization that is not ratified by Congress in the form of a treaty. As far as Verisign goes well they will not survive the mounting law suits that will be unleashed shortly. The US based software industry is going to see some deep pocket attacks that will make tobacco settlements seem like lunch money. In the near future the influence buying will find a funding shortfall so many non-US entities will have equal access to provide registry services. It will be at this point the US will seek UN controll of the registry services and the removal of ICANN all together.

ICANN has hired consultants repeatedly before. In each case, like good consultants do, they've come back with a report that said what the client wanted to hear. In each case critics have pointed to pretty substantial flaws in the reports, and in the process by which the consultants gathered and weighed evidence.

Using consultants, who are in fact a black box to outsiders, has so far (and will generally tend) to _reduce_ transparency not increase it.

Why is this case different? I'd love it if it were, but why the optimism?

If they have a track record of doing just that - hiring consultants to black box the report - then we already know the result. I'm not sure if they are planning to release their report; if they do then it will be pretty obvious whether it is flawed or not, given the vested interest each applicant has in surfacing the errors.

Has anyone opened a betting book on the 5 contenders? ;)