Two recent (or upcoming) ICANN moments should cause concern. 

First, the sTLD beauty contest.  The application requirements for these sTLDs make it seem as if registries are applying for venture funding rather than a string.  Take a look, particularly at the financial and business plan requirements.  Headcounts down to the mailroom.  Travel plans.  It's as if ICANN has hired an investment banker to look into these plans.  ICANN has no special competency in any of these areas, and it would make much more sense -- and fit ICANN's limited role so much better -- if ICANN had a neutral third party develop minimum technical/financial standards.  ICANN could then then roll TLDs (not sponsored, not unsponsored, just TLDs) out as applications came in and were approved. 

Second, the suggestion that ICANN needs a Policy Development Process about changes to the "architecture and operations" (or "services and actions" -- pick your broad description) of a registry.  Although the staff says (and I believe them) that all they're doing is trying to develop a coherent process for responding to registry requests to amend their contracts, it's very clear that other constituencies view this PDP as an opportunity to ensure that no registry does anything without their permission.  This has gone far out of scope and needs to be hauled back.  Yes, we need a docket for the process and substance of actions ICANN is taking -- but we don't need one or another constituency blocking registry services for idiosyncratic reasons. 

The idea is that registries are free to innovate unless there is a consensus policy in existence to the contrary.  This PDP should not be viewed as changing that default setting, which is set forth in each of the contracts ICANN has signed with gTLDs.  Nor should the sTLD process be looked on as a model for future TLD activities.  It's time to move on to an ICANN that is more clearly in the business of technical coordination.