RE: [council] Re: Collisions in Namespace

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

>>> Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com> 04/13/01 04:33PM >>>

I think we need to be clear on the issues, and then decide whether there is
even a need for a working group to discuss.

Milton Mueller replies:
—--------------------- 
That's fine with me as long as the report is used simply to clarify the charter of a working group. 

In general, there ought to be a very low threshold for the creation of DNSO working groups. The costs of creating them are low. Their downside potential is low because they can't really accomplish anything without NC approval and Board approval anyway. Their upside potential is high - they may forge consensus, compromise, or simply greater awareness and definition of issues. And they also delegate some of the work of forming policy to people besides overburdened NC members.

Finally, let me address some of your fears about "an indirect and hidden effort to advocate for and encourage alternative roots." 

Non-ICANN roots exist. It's a fact. I don't care whether you love them or hate them. Ignoring them will not make them go away. This poses a dilemma for ICANN. If ICANN chooses names that conflict with other roots it may cause problems for consumers and for itself (as we learned in the Feb US Congress testimoney). If it does not choose those names it may amount to a de facto recognition of alternate roots. 

Therefore, WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THEM, ICANN must have a policy for defining its relationship to these efforts. We should not prejudge what this policy is. The policy is for the DNSO as a whole to work out in an open and transparent way. 

That we need a policy, is indisputable.