[ga] Stuart Lynn's New TLDs Proposals : Opening Comments

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Responses to Stuart Lynn's Proposals for New TLDs

I will probably submit a more systematic paper, but these are a few opening
comments.

Stuart Lynn: The underlying premise of this report is that most of the
vexing problems over the course of the new gTLD process have arisen in
connection with the unsponsored TLDs, not with the sponsored TLDs. This is
not surprising, and does not reflect negatively on the selected operators of
those new unsponsored TLDs.

Richard Henderson: I find it extraordinary that Stuart Lynn seems to be
exonerating the Registries responsible for the unsponsored New TLDs. The
conduct of Afilias, its Board, and its executives seems indefensible to many
people, and their execution of the roll-out was described by their own
resigning Board member (Robert Connelly) as "an abomination". Coupled with
breaches of the rules and contracts by Board members of Afilias and its
executives (breaches they have never attempted to deny), this sounds like a
Lynn whitewash. I'll remind you that Dan Halloran has now been running
scared of addressing these charges for over 220 days.

Stuart Lynn: There are many other significant, unanswered questions
regarding new unsponsored TLDs - questions whose answers should, in my view,
await completion of the full-scale evaluation recommended by the NTEPPTF
(see Part II of this overall Action Plan for new gTLDs). In any event, there
appears to be little demand right now for new unsponsored TLDs  - at least,
no one is banging at my door. Some of the enthusiasm of a couple of years
ago has perhaps been tempered by the realities of the marketplace.
Richard Henderson: One of the key questions must be, how do you justify any
further unsponsored New TLDs (and Stuart Lynn advocates using the same
Registry Agreements and rules) when (a) there has been no evaluation process
(b) no release of the Registries' Evaluation Reports (c) clearly-publicised
fiascos and harm to consumers. Why is the consumer any less likely to be
harmed again, if they just re-run the process? So on the question of
unsponsored New TLDs I would say that it would be unacceptable simply to
pre-empt the findings of an evaluation process, or re-run the Agreements
which have already failed in a number of serious ways in the first round of
New TLDs. At the very least, the Agreements need to be significantly
re-written.

Stuart Lynn: Or should the name space be rationalized or "taxonomized", as
it were, with ICANN defining the TLD strings in some comprehensive fashion,
and requesting bids for the various individual components of this
"taxonomized" space?

Richard Henderson: I challenge the assumption that ICANN is the right entity
to "define" the TLD strings and create an overall taxonomy for the Internet
of the whole world. I should have said that the narrow technical mission of
ICANN in NO WAY extends to decisions over defining the fundamental naming
structure of the world's internet. To assume it does, suggests that USG
through ICANN owns the Internet everywhere, and I believe an entirely
independent body or even a Commission of the United Nations should be
involved in determining the structure and taxonomy of the Internet for the
future. If ICANN is about technical oversight, what is it doing, suggesting
it should take the decisions for such fundamental policy? I'm not even
assuming that a taxonomy is the right approach (though it needs to be
considered) but I'm saying that crucial decisions about the shape and
structure of the Internet should not be left to a discredited California
quango, which so many people suspect is in league with a clique of wealthy
vested interests : these are decisions which need to take into account the
needs and interests of the whole world, all its countries, and a much wider
range of relevant parties.

Stuart Lynn: There were differing views as to how much involvement ICANN
should have in constraining new registries through its legal framework. Some
felt that ICANN should have minimal involvement, adopting a laissez-faire
attitude towards the marketplace. Others felt that more oversight was needed
to create a level playing field for competition to work fairly and
effectively, or to protect consumers.

Richard Henderson: Some of the fiascos and harm to consumers that were
evidenced and documented in the Afilias roll-out (and to a lesser extent in
.biz) were attributable EXACTLY to the flimsy Registry and Registrar
agreements, and ICANN's consciously laissez-faire policy of almost zero
policing. It is a significant FACT that many of the frauds and iniquities
that occurred should have been PRE-EMPTED by (a) tighter, more intelligent
Agreements (b) enforcement of the Agreements (c) pro-active measures by
ICANN to protect and defend the integrity of the processes and actively
address the serious concerns of consumers. As many of you know, ICANN
pursued a policy of vagueness, laissez-faire let-it-run, non-responsiveness
(hello Dan Halloran!), and abjectly failed to put consumers first. Their
friends in the Registry and Registrar industry were protected and allowed to
get away with mayhem. Any suggestion that further NewTLDs can be envisaged,
using the same Registry Agreements, is unacceptable. ICANN should (if only
in its own self-interest) be aware of the very serious damage done to its
own credibility by the pandemonium that accompanied the .info and .biz
releases. ICANN cannot afford to suffer further PR disasters or its demise
may become terminal.

Further more structured comments probably to follow.

Richard Henderson


--
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