I think we are finally getting somewhere: ICANN is no longer fluttering flusteredly whenever a lobbying group sends a nastygram over the transom.

Case in point: a letter from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) that arrived a few days ago, full of bombast and muscle-flexing, demanding that ICANN immediately stop the new gTLD program until a long list of demands from the ANA were met, or else the ANA would be forced to take some Very Scary Actions:

Should ICANN refuse to reconsider and adopt a program that takes into account the ANA’s concerns expressed in this letter, ICANN and the Program present the ANA and its members no choice but to do whatever is necessary to prevent implementation of the Program…”

The ANA is also featuring on its website an unintentionally hilarious video of ANA chief Bob Liodice mangling facts, grammar, vocabulary, good sense, and Internet architecture as he warns about “an insidious problem that is about to take place within the Internet domain.” And that’s just the first sentence.

Mr. Liodice betrays no sense of embarrassment as he sounds the alarm about this Terrible Thing he has just discovered, even though the ANA has had five years, seven guidebook drafts, dozens of ICANN meetings, and easy access to ICANN Board members and staff to say something about the program before now. Barn door… horse… bolted… oh well. I suspect Paul Revere was not an ANA member.

ICANN, though, has responded forcefully, albeit after the ANA had the ear of the press for five days of unopposed scare-mongering. In a long and substantive reply to ANA’s letter, ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom takes Mr. Liodice to school and raps him on the knuckles for shoddy scholarship:

Your letter also claims that the program represents “unrestricted expansion” or allows “virtually any word or phrase.” These statements demonstrate a lack of understanding of Program details. More research on your part would have revealed: (i) restrictions on delegation rates; (ii) string requirements and limitations; (iii) required applicant background, financial and technical qualifications; (iv) objection processes for infringing and other inappropriately applied-for strings; and (v) standing registry operator obligations in the registry agreement.

Your quotations from the economic studies are highly selective and lead to an unsupported conclusion that more domain names will lead to cyber security lapses or consumer privacy violations. Your claim of “enormous financial burdens” and other broad statements are offered without supporting data or rationale.

ICANN is unyielding in its commitment to the public interest, and the new generic top-level domain Program is only one expression of this commitment.

Please be advised that ICANN will vigorously defend the multi-stakeholder model and the hard-fought consensus of its global stakeholder participants, its duty to act in accordance with established bottom-up processes, and its responsibility to the broad public interest of the global Internet community, rather than to the specific interests of any particular group.

It’s good to see ICANN find its feet and its voice. The approval of the new gTLD program is already having some collateral benefits.