Re: [council] Discussion draft on unique, authoritative root

["M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>]

Dear Milton:

Phillip has already separately and helpfully clarified what the 
current state of the Names Council deliberations are with respect to 
these matters, and of course I have nothing to add. And, yes, I had 
seen the documents to which you referred prior to finishing my 
document but, apart from the IAB technical note already reference in 
my document, I did not find anything there to affect what I had 
written.

It is absolutely a staff responsibility to clarify what is existing 
policy and that is precisely what a good part of my document is all 
about. A major point of the document is that policy exists, has 
existed since the very formation of ICANN (qv, for example, ICANN's 
Articles of Incorporation), and is well documented in many places. 
Indeed it well covers the situations that you mention. I think it 
would be a helpful addition to the Names Council discussion to have 
this historical policy perspective in hand, since it was nowhere 
referenced in the other documents distributed to the Names Council 
(apart, again, from the technical issues raised in the IAB reference).

Furthermore it is precisely because I have extreme faith in the 
community that I point out that unless and until policy is changed, 
we must follow the policies that have been lain down by the community 
following the consensus processes that established a public trust. 
And that those who wish to circumvent those policies and jump ahead 
of consensus processes are doing so by thumbing their nose at the 
community.

There is nothing in my document that proposes or recommends new policy.

Incidentally, I suspect the Board would conclude that any policy 
change that affects the notion of a single, authoritative root would 
require a community consensus that straddles at least the DNSO *and* 
the PSO, since there are technical issues involved regarding the 
stability of the DNS.

Thank you for your feedback. I know you are an enthusiastic proponent 
for abandoning a single root and I read your comments with great 
interest. I do, however, find one premise of your "economic" paper 
very curious, namely that ICANN will have to abandon the policy of a 
single, authoritative root because some are thumbing their noses at 
the policy. That's a hell of a way for a consensus railroad to 
operate. Apply that theory (ICANN will abandon any policy if at least 
one member of the community chooses to ignore it) to all policies and 
we would have none left. Perhaps some would like that result, but it 
is not the charter I am paid to preside over.

I do look forward to further dialog. Perhaps we can talk further in Stockholm.

Stuart

At 2:27 AM -0400 5/29/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Stuart:
>The Names Council has created a committee to begin
>exploration of policy toward multiple roots.
>We have prepared an initial briefing paper that
>attempts to outline some of the technical and economic issues.
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010528.NC-root-briefing-MM.pdf
>
>We will begin discussion of this in Stockholm.
>
>I see in your "Discussion Draft" and your message
>several references to "established policy."
>Unfortunately, there is no "established policy" for the problems we 
>are considering. New.net did not
>exist when the White Paper was drafted. Nor did
>the possibility of supporting internationalized domain
>names through alternate roots. And of course ICANN's
>Board had not yet selected a TLD that conflicted with
>one claimed by an alternate registry.
>
>As you know, in the ICANN "community" policy decisions
>regarding the DNS are initiated by the DNSO. It is
>inappropriate, I'm sure you agree, for staff or
>management to purport to tell us what the policy is
>before we have concluded our own process.
>
>Indeed, a central theme of your Discussion Draft is
>that ICANN's authority to manage the root comes from its 
>accountability to the community through policy-making organs such as 
>the DNSO. I would encourage you to make good on that claim and show 
>a litle faith in that community. In other words, let us do our job. 
>
>Of course, I welcome continued dialogue with you,
>the IAB, and other interested parties on how you think
>these issues should be handled.
>
>--Milton Mueller

-- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.org