  This paper tells the story leading to ICANN's selection of seven new Internet
top level domains in November 2000. In implementing proposals to expand the
name space, ICANN adopted an approach far different from Jon Postel's
lightweight proposals. ICANN staff, in setting the ground rules for considering
new gTLDs, emphasized that only a few applicants would be allowed in, and
imposed strict threshold requirements. Staff determined that the Board should
pick TLDs by looking at all relevant aspects of every proposal, and deciding
which ones presented the best overall combination of a variety of
incommensurable factors. Aspects of the resulting process were predictable:
Anyone familiar with the FCC comparative hearing process for broadcast licenses
can attest that this sort of ad hoc comparison is necessarily subjective,
lending itself to arbitrariness and biased application. Yet the process had
advantages that appealed to ICANN decision-makers. The Board members would be
free to take their best shots, in a situationally sensitive manner, at
advancing the policies they thought important. The approach allowed ICANN to
maintain the greatest degree of control. The end result, though, was a process
stunning in its arbitrariness, a bad parody of fact-bound, situationally
sensitive (rather than rules-based) decision-making.
