RE: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY'

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: JINTLAW@aol.com [mailto:JINTLAW@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:49 AM

> I don't interpret it that way at all.  
> 
> To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that 
> those who operate on the alternate root should not be 
> prevented from applying to be in the authoritative root.  
> 
> Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root 
> would like to become part of the authoritative root and live 
> by all of the rules that the authoritative root TLDs live by, 
> it should not be prevented from doing so (i.e., subject to 
> consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, mandatory 
> financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).  
> 
> It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, 
> nor is it any enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions 
> and be constrained the alternate roots that are already operated.

I read this the same way. To put it bluntly, a war can ONLY end when both
sides allow quarter. To persue a conflict with unmitigated bloodlust is to
guarantee continuance of the conflict and even a continued excalation in
hostilities (look at the middle-east). The inclusive roots were not created
at whim. They were created after years of frustration with /NSF/IANA/NSI and
by folks that very much knew what they were doing. In fact, were it not for
the activities of the inclusive root folk, I would wager that we would not
have ANY new TLDs today. I firmly believe that to be a true statement.

I believe that Congress also had that in mind. It is a hint, from some very
astute and powerful people, that these polarized positions are too extreme.
The compromise is to let the inclusive TLDs apply to the ICANN, without
prejudice. Alternatively, if both sides aren't willing to compromise, then
the war will continue and can even escalate (how many more NewNets do you
want? I know of three others, in various funding stages, right now.). 

I know for fact that, with some understandable trepedation, that the various
inclusive root players are open to such discussion. I also know for fact
that there are some hard-line opponents of any such compromise. This is
maybe because they resented having to open the root up, to new TLDs, in the
first place and the activity of the inclusive root community forced them to
change? I know that I'm not the only one that reads it that way.

The way I see it, Congress called for an honorable compromise. Since the
sole stumbling block, to such a compromise, is the hard-line element within
ICANN, let's see if they're listening. Remember, DOC reports to Congress.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html