Re: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

Hi Dassa

> Agreed and all measures need to be taken to ensure the name space is
> responsive to market demands.  Currently it is not.  That is a policy
> issue.  ICANN does not appear to have a policy at meeting market demand.
>
> |> Having said that, it is already ICANN's stated *policy* to release more
> |> TLDs.  All the GA can do is urge ICANN to move more quickly.
> |> There is no policy change involved.
>
> I disagree, there is the need for a policy change in ensuring ICANN meets
> market demand and is more responsive in meeting the needs expressed by
> users of the system.

I don't want to split hairs too much here.  ICANN's stated policy in
relation to TLDs is to issue more of them.  However, in the broad, it is
certainly possible for ICANN to develop what you might call a *marketing
policy*.  The problem with that is that Kent and others will tell you that
ICANN is a non-profit, technical organisation that does not respond to
*market demand*.

We would have to consider whether this applies to a wider scope than just
the alternative roots.  It may be useful for you to formulate a separate
such statement.  That need not impact the current formulation.

> > There is also the UDRP issue which does not apply to alternate TLDs.
> > They will continue to be operated for that reason only.
>
> I'm not sure of the relationship between the UDRP and the so called
> alternative roots.  Linking the two issues would not be productive in my
> opinion.

I was simply making the observation that ICANN gTLDs are bound by UDRP and
the others are not.  This is a point of differentiation between the two
products.

> |> I'm sure you agree that ICANN should adopt compliance with the relevant
> |> standards as a general principle.  And to encourage co-operation and
> |> compliance within the industry is hardly a radical notion.
>
> Yes, I do agree, however, co-operation and compliance are two different
> things in this issue.  The so called alternative roots are not in
> compliance.

It is not a simple issue.  Assuming that's the case means that it is
reasonable for ICANN to seek to foster compliance.  I don't see how they can
without some form of co-operation.  Kent's criminal sanctions won't work.
And the alt root people are very independent !!

> I do not consider them legitimate, although others obviously
> do.  BTW, I use the term legitimate here in an Internet RFC compliance
> context and not in a legal sense.

A valid viewpoint.  Let's separate *legitimate* and *illegal*.

> |> Please tell me what part of that wording you find difficult to accept.
>
> The wording appears to be fine.  I am only concerned with the concept of
> submission behind the co-operation statement.

Thanks.  I don't see any problem with *co-operation*.  That's what we are
doing right now.  We are co-operating onlist.  It was raining in Sydney
today but I'm sure I could find other things to do apart from being
co-operative !!

Anyway, can you think of an amendment to soften the implication?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss














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