It would have been nice if the editors at ICANNWatch had actually called out the other side before they posted their take on the dotSU "de-delegation". As it stands, it is an unfair indictment that still begs for "the other side of story". In the Wired article, Herbert claims he was talking off-the-record, Mary indicates that the matter still needs to be considered by ICANN and Sergey (the author) suggests that this will be a matter for discussion at the Shanghai meeting. Michael immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is a done deal, an insider conspiracy and yet another example of the illegitimacy of ICANN.
I've never been quite sure what the ICANNWatch agenda is. I used to think they were a necessary check in the eco-system. Now, I'm not sure. Regardless of what their goals actually are, their potshot criticisms have become shrill and counterproductive. Readers of the National Enquirer crave this style of journalism. Personally, I expect more.
Google points to some 33,300 websites related to the topic of "journalistic integrity" - we need a few more that point to ICANNWatch.