[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Comment on Latest NC draft - decentralization of DNSO functions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Milton and all,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
> > Jamie please look at the side-effects even the modest expansion
> > that has occurred - numerous lawsuits surrounding sunrise, landrush,
> > trademarks, etc - there are many operational and policy
> > (and apparently regulatory) issues surrounding the
>
> It is obvious to anyone with experience in regulatory
> economics that modest expansion of the top-level domain
> names has been legally controversial is PRECISELY BECAUSE
> of the artificial scarcity ICANN has imposed on the name
> space.

  Very true.  The ICANN BoD and staff along with the BC, IP,
and Registry constituencies have consorted to a great extent
to make divisive the DNS that serves the public and is a public
resource in this way..

>
>
> If ICANN announced that it was going to accept applications
> for a "safe" number of TLDs each year, such as 40 or 50,
> and that it would confine itself to:
>
> a) setting OBJECTIVE minimum technical, financial and escrow
> requirements that would be applied to all regisrtries
>
> b) defining objective and neutral procedures, such as
> auctions, for resolving competing claims to TLDs
>
> The process would be much smoother and ICANN could
> truly be considered a coordinator. Any idiot could have,
> and indeed did redict that "Sunrise" would cause interminable
> problems, because you cannot MECHANIZE trademark
> protection without doing violence both to DNS as a
> protocol and to basic concepts of trademark rights.

  I think that I am the "Idiot" to which you refer to here
Milton.  >;)  But be that as it may, you are indeed quite
correct.  the ICANN staff is terribly inept in handling
any such coordination as was the IANA.

>
>
> It is because ICANN attempts to use its position as
> gatekeeper to entry into a market for regulatory purposes
> that it continually gets into legal and political hot water.
> And artificial scarcity simply makes the domains that do
> exist more valuable and hence more contentious.

  Exactly right.  Had ICANN followed RFC 1591
instead of trying to subvert it, much of these problems
would likely not have occurred.  I would again suggest
that ICANN stay out of deciding what Top-level
Domians can be entered into the Legacy/USG root
zone, and stick to making sure that the stability
once a new TLD has been added has the basic
necessary security and backup such as escrow
to adequately manage such or same...

>
>
> ICANN needs to pull back from its overextended regulatory
> role, otherwise it will continue to be mired in counterproductive
> politics.

  Indeed it does.  It needs to follow the White Paper and MoU
instead of being purposefully divisive...

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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