If there is interest, I can try posting Aramaic. :) ICANN's continued insistence that it only does technical stability is belied by its governing documents, which require it to consider things like competition and intellectual property. Consider the debate over WHOIS. A requirement for an administrative contact in case of some emergency makes sense from a technical perspective, but does anything else? The "thick registry" concept is justified on a host of non-technical concerns. This denial is not merely a matter of hypocracy. it actively hinders development of policy at ICANN. ICANN should either seek to define a valid public interest standard or abjure _any_ requirement that does not directly speak to a demonstrated technical issue of such importance that it requires a global policy accross the namespace. ICANN recapitulates the FCC, and does it badly. >