[ga] Re: .aero

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?:???  AERO

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=aero&submit=Submit

This may help...
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@hasbrouck.org>
To: <ICANN.Board.of.Directors@auth01.anet.com>; <At-Large.Study.Committee@auth01.anet.com>
Cc: <forum@atlargestudy.org>; <touton@icann.org>; <aero@sita.int>; <infotec-travel@yahoogroups.com>; <tgw@topica.com>;
<david_mcguire@newsbytes.com>; <dstandeford@warren-news.com>; <dan@dantobias.com>; <cchiu@aclu.org>; <jfleming@anet.com>;
<gro@direct.ca>; <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: .aero


> Why the draft .aero agreement deserves full and public
> discussion (response to the ICANN General Counsel's analysis of the
> draft .aero agreement)
>
> ==================================================
>
> Contents:
>
> 1. Errors in the General Counsel's analysis of the draft
> .aero agreement
>
> 2. The scope of .aero in the draft agreement is
> significantly different from the original proposal.
>
> 3. The General Counsel's analysis ignores the 'operate to
> the maximum extent feasible' clause in the bylaws.
>
> 4. The draft .aero agreement involves substantial policy
> issues.
>
> ==================================================
>
> 1. ERRORS IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT
> .AERO AGREEMENT
>
> On 24 November 2001, ICANN's General Counsel, Mr. Louis
> Touton, posted (and provided to me and to the ICANN Board of
> Directors) his analysis of my criticisms of the draft
> agreement between ICANN and SITA for SITA to sponsor a
> ".aero" global top-level domain.  (My previous comments on
> .aero are at <http://hasbrouck.org/icann>. Mr. Touton's
> analysis is at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/
> report-aero-tld-24nov01.htm>.)
>
> There isn't time before the 27 November 2001 deadline for
> action by members of the Board for me to respond to all of
> Mr. Touton's arguments.  Once a member of the Board objects
> to approval of the current draft of the .aero agreement
> without discussion, it can be properly considered, without
> undue haste.
>
> I do, however, want to point out a few of Mr. Touton's most
> important errors that relate to whether the issue deserves a
> public forum and full discussion by the Board:
>
> 2. THE SCOPE OF .AERO IN THE DRAFT AGREEMENT IS
> SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
>
> .aero was proposed as "a Top Level Domain for the *entire*
> Air Transport Community (ATC)... In this ... proposal, the
> definition of ATC is: '*All* companies and organizations for
> which the main activity is related to Air Transport."
> [emphasis added; the proposal was originally for ".air" but
> was selected by ICANN for the alternative ".aero".]
>
> It was clear (at least to those of us in the air transport
> community, but outside the industry, and to those on the
> consumer side of the industry) that throughout the balance
> of the proposal SITA used the terms "industry" and
> "community" as though they were interchangeable.  And there
> was little attention paid by SITA, as an industry
> organization, to how non-industry stakeholders would be
> represented.
>
> But the term "community" as used throughout the proposal
> would have to be interpreted in accordance with the
> inclusive definition cited above, and any policies
> ultimately adopted would have to be consistent with this
> general policy and charter.  So we were entitled to conclude
> that the TLD would include all members of the community, and
> that all such members would be able to participate in
> formulating policies for participation and for governance of
> the TLD.
>
> Mr. Touton lists several sections of the proposal mentioning
> industry groups that would be included in .aero.  But the
> proposal said that "The ATC includes airlines, aerospace
> companies, airport authorities and governmental
> organizations."  The proposal did *not* say, "The ATC
> includes *only*" the listed categories of stakeholders.  The
> lists appeared to be non-exclusive examples.  The
> inclusiveness of the definition of the ATC, as a first
> principle governing the interpretation of the rest of the
> proposal, could not have been more explicit and unambiguous.
>
> The inclusiveness of SITA's proposal, and the pledge that
> all members of the community would be able to participate in
> developing policies for the TLD, was a key reason the
> proposal was accepted.
>
> There were 2 TLD proposals from the airline industry: SITA
> proposed ".air" and ".aero", and IATA proposed ".travel".
> Airlines and travel agencies (among others) would have been
> included in both. IATA is a trade association of airlines;
> SITA is a cooperative owned by airlines.
>
> The major difference between the SITA and IATA proposals was
> the inclusiveness of SITA's proposal. Lack of inclusiveness
> and representativeness of the broader community of
> stakeholders in the relevant sector of activity was the
> major objection to IATA's proposal.  Objections to IATA's
> proposal for .travel for lack of representativeness were
> raised by public comments and by ICANN's evaluation team.
> IATA's lack of representativeness was cited both by ICANN's
> Board and by the Committee of the Board on Reconsideration
> as one of the major grounds for non-selection of IATA's
> proposal for .travel.
>
> If SITA's proposal for .aero had excluded all stakeholders
> except service providers from registration and/or
> participation in the TLD, I and others would have objected
> on the same grounds of lack of representativeness as were
> raised against IATA's proposal for .travel.  And it seems
> likely that the Board would not have approved SITA's
> proposal unless it included a commitment to inclusiveness in
> eligibility for registration and participation.
>
> 3. THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS IGNORES THE 'OPERATE TO
> THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE' CLAUSE IN THE BYLAWS
>
> Mr. Touton claims that "the openness and transparency
> principles ... apply to ICANN's establishment of policies,
> not the drafting of contracts."  This is wrong.
>
> First, ICANN"s bylaws requires that "The Corporation and its
> subsidiary bodies shall operate" openly and transparently.
> This use of "operate" is much broader than if the bylaws
> said ICANN must "set policy" openly and transparently, or if
> the requirement were limited to actions of the ICANN Board.
>
> Second, Mr. Touton ignores the clause, "to the maximum
> extent feasible" in the transparency section of ICANN's
> bylaws.  The only relevant question is whether a particular
> aspect of openness, transparency, or procedural fairness is
> "feasible", judged according to the "maximum extent" of
> feasibility.  Whether it is inconvenient or detrimental to
> anyone's commercial interest (as Mr. Touton claims) is,
> under the bylaws, irrelevant.
>
> Mr. Touton apparently confuses "drafting" with
> "negotiation"; no reason has been given why it would not be
> feasible to permit observers at negotiating sessions between
> ICANN and prospective TLD sponsors.  If observers such as
> myself had been permitted at SITA-ICANN negotiations, there
> would be no dispute as to whether SITA wanted and intended
> to include additional categories of participants in .aero,
> or whether their exclusion was at the request of SITA or of
> ICANN's staff.
>
> Mr. Touton points out that there are some transparency
> requirements in the draft .aero agreement, and that the
> confidentiality restrictions are limited. These arguments
> are, similarly, irrelevant to the standard set by ICANN's
> bylaws: "the maximum extent feasible" of openness and
> transparency in operation.
>
> Mr Touton also claims that provisions for openness *within*
> the (redefined) .aero TLD community satisfy the requirement
> for openness in general.  But nothing in the transparency
> clause of the bylaws contains, or authorizes, such a
> limitation of the sphere of openness.  Any such limitation
> would be contrary to the "maximum extent feasible" clause.
>
> Even within the (redefined) .aero constituency, however,
> SITA has not fulfilled its commitments to openness,
> transparency, and ensuring fairness.  According to SITA's
> proposal, "SITA is committed to establishing and maintaining
> a high level policy group (the ANPG) to define the best
> manner to ensure that the '.air' TLD is optimized for the
> benefit of the Air Transport Community and the traveling
> public. At the same time, this policy group will ensure that
> this domain is ... accessible to all users within the Air
> Transport Community. This group will be comprised of senior
> representatives of the Air Transport Community and will meet
> regularly." It was through this group that .aero policies --
> such as those embodied in the agreement now before the ICANN
> Board -- were supposed to be developed.
>
> But this commitment in the proposal has disappeared entirely
> from the draft .aero agreement. As a members of the air
> transport media and the .aero consituency, I specifically
> asked ICANN for information about participating in, and/or
> observing meetings of, the ANPG.  But the only answer I got
> from SITA was that information on .aero policies would be
> provided only *after* those policies are adopted.  If an
> "ANPG" or similar policy group has been formed, it has not
> operated openly or transparently, even to people like me
> within the community. And it has not been representative of
> me or other members of the aviation media, the traveling
> public, and other segments of the ATC, as SITA pledged it
> would be.
>
> 4. THE DRAFT .AERO AGREEMENT INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL POLICY
> ISSUES.
>
> Mr. Touton claims that the relevant sections of the .aero
> agreement "do not themselves create any new 'policy';
> instead they are intended to implement in legal language the
> scope of the .aero TLD that was selected by the ICANN
> Board."
>
> Mr Touton refers extensively to the earlier discussions of
> the standard sections of the sponsorship agreement.  But he
> ignores that the relevant sections defining the .aero
> charter, eligibility criteria, delegation of authority, and
> confidentiality restrictions are not part of the standard
> agreement.
>
> As I've discussed above, the "scope" of the .aero TLD has
> changed materially from the proposal selected by the Board.
> There has been no public discussion whatsoever of that
> change, and no opportunity for such discussion until the
> change was revealed with the posting of the relevant
> sections of the draft agreement in recent days.
>
> It is unfortunate that SITA and ICANN's staff chose to
> conduct their negotiating sessions in secret, and not to
> release drafts of the agreement until they considered them
> ready for approval. If they had operated openly, they would
> have learned of objections like mine much sooner.  But I
> brought this to their attention at the first opportunity,
> within 7 days of the posting of each of the relevant
> portions of the draft.
>
> If SITA and ICANN's staff didn't find out sooner that their
> draft was objectionable to many of those who were defined in
> the original .aero proposal as community members and
> stakeholders, that is entirely their own fault. I hope this
> will be a lesson to them for future sponsorship agreement
> negotiations.
>
> It's difficult to take seriously Mr. Touton's claim that
> approval of the first, and admittedly precedent-setting,
> agreement for a sponsored TLD for a specific sector of
> economic activity, is not a policy decision.  I belive there
> is a clear consensus in the Internet community that the
> approval of new TLD's, particularly including the terms and
> conditions for delegating authority over them, is one of
> your most important policy responsibilities. If this isn't a
> policy issue, I don't know what is.
>
> At a minimum, your decision on the draft .aero agreement, as
> currently presented, involves the following substantial
> policy questions:
>
> (A) Will there be TLD's for sectors of activity -- open to
> all participants and stakeholders in those sectors -- or
> will sector-specific TLD's be limited to industry entities,
> to the exclusion of consumers, civil-society, and at-large
> stakeholders in those sectors?
>
> If ICANN is concerned about capture of at-large
> representation by particular interest groups, you should be
> equally concerned about capture of sector-specific TLD's by
> specific interest group within those sectors, such as
> industry.  This danger is most acute in sectors with large
> commercial potential.  .aero is not a domain for a small or
> non- commercial niche: SITA itself says, correctly, that air
> transportation is the largest segment of e-commerce.  As
> such, it is the economic sector where the danger of capture
> of a sector-specific domain by industry or commercial
> interests is greatest, and needs to be guarded against most
> carefully.
>
> (B) Will the requirement of ICANN's bylaws for openness,
> transparency, and procedural fairness -- "to the maximum
> extent feasible" -- be complied with in the delegation of
> authority to sponsors of sTLD's?
>
> As I've pointed out in my recommendations to the ALSC, most
> ICANN decision-making is already delegated.  And this
> question will continue to increase in importance as ICANN
> delegates more and more authority to additional TLD sponsors
> and other subsidiary bodies.
>
> There has been no public forum or discussion by the Board of
> either of these policy questions. The legal validity of any
> action taken without a public forum would be in doubt under
> the bylaws. This would make it difficult for either ICANN or
> SITA to proceed on the basis of such a questioned
> "agreement".  And it this could create a risk of liability
> and expense for both SITA and ICANN. This could easily be
> avoided by holding a public forum and discussion at a future
> ICANN Board meeting, as required by the bylaws.
>
> I supported the SITA proposal for .aero, as it was
> originally made.  I remain willing, and reiterate my offer,
> to work with SITA and ICANN's staff and Board, to the extent
> my personal finances permit, to help revise the draft
> agreement to represent the full diversity of the air
> transport community (as originally defined) and include
> provisions to ensure compliance with ICANN's mandate that
> delegated subsidiary bodies like sTLD sponsors "operate, to
> the maximum extent feasible, in an open and transparent
> manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> fairness," particularly fairness between the interests of
> service providers, consumers, and the public at large. I
> believe other stakeholders would also join this consensus-
> building process, were an open invitation extended.
>
> These and other issues raised by .aero are unlikely to be
> resolved by 27 November 2001, which is the deadline for
> members of the ICANN Board to request that the draft .aero
> agreement not be approved or signed without a public forum
> and full opportunity for discussion at a future Board
> meeting.  Fundamental policy question are not usually
> resolved, and a consensus does not usually develop in a
> global community, as quickly as the 7-day comment and
> objection period.
>
> Fortunately, the Board doesn't have to make a decision on
> this issue so quickly.  The only issue to be decided right
> now is whether the draft .aero agreement is a "polic[y] ...
> being considered by the Board for adoption that
> substantially affect[s] ... third parties."  If it is, then
> the Board is required by ICANN's bylaws to "hold a public
> forum at which the proposed policy would be discussed",
> concerns such as those I have raised could be addressed, and
> a consensus might emerge.
>
> But in order to comply with that section of the bylaws, and
> to afford the required opportunity for open discussion and
> development of consensus, at least one member of the Board
> must request, on or before 27 November 2001, that the draft
> .aero agreement not be approved without a public forum.
>
> Edward Hasbrouck
> edward@hasbrouck.org
> http://hasbrouck.org
>
> Passenger air travel and travel e-commerce consumer
> advocate, author, and FAQ-maintainer
>
> Member-at-large of the Air Transport Community and the
> ".aero" gTLD constituency
>
>

--
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