Re: [ga-roots] MOTION - Consensus-Based Policy on Alt Roots

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Harald, this is really foolish.  You are suggesting that ICANN make 
global legal policy for other roots.  In addition this proposal would further 
fracture any possibility of cooperation.   Further, there is no way that 
public information can be withheld from the public, at least not in the US.

Inclusive roots carry all known non-collidng TLDs.  Roots have the right 
to be exclusive and not inlcude TLDs they choose to exclude.  That's 
fine. ICANN is exclusive.  There is no way, however, that ICANN or 
anyone else can stop others from including TLDs - at least not without 
those TLDs cutting themselves off from the public internet.  If they want 
to be seen, they must be public.

I realize that you are against the recognition of any root other than the 
one DoC controls.  However proposing what you have below is not the 
answer.  Please try to realize that the roots are not in competition with 
ICANN.  They just offer more.  ICANN loses nothing when someone 
points to another root.

Leah

On 9 May 2001, at 12:32, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 13:10 09.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >Hi Marc
> >
> >As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
> >policy input to ICANN, I have asked everybody that they think that
> >consensus-based policy should be?  I therefore move the following policy
> >should be adopted by ICANN:
> >
> >"ICANN adopts compliance with the relevant DNS standards as a general
> >principle.  It recognises that there is a likelihood of collision and/or
> >confusion when root operators do not comply with RFC 1591 which suggests
> >that there should be a "unique root zone*.  ICANN will therefore adopt
> >methods and measures to foster co-operation and compliance within the
> >industry."
> >
> >Any seconders?
> 
> Motion to amend motion.
> 
> Note that debate in the GA can only affect GA statements. Thus, the 
> statement should be formulated as a request to the Names Council to propose
> a policy to the ICANN BoD.
> 
> In addition, I (like William) think that this statement does not say what
> the majority of the GA wants it to say. I could be wrong about the
> majority....
> 
> Amended motion.
> 
> "The DNSO GA recommends that the DNSO NC recommend to the ICANN BoD the
> following policy statement:
> 
> ------
> ICANN administers a set of "root" servers that conform to the DNS protocol
> as standardized by the IETF, serving a namespace hereafter referred to as
> the "ICANN namespace".
> 
> Recognizing the need for an unique namespace at the root of the DNS as
> specified in RFC 2826, ICANN reaffirms that it will not initiate services
> where root servers under ICANN control will return different answers for
> the same domain name; ICANN will operate only one namespace.
> 
> Recognizing that there is an urgent request for the addition of names to
> this namespace, ICANN has started establishing procedures for such
> additions, the first of which are scheduled to be added in 2001.
> 
> ICANN recognizes that there are other name spaces served by organizations
> unrelated to ICANN, for purposes other than serving as the traditional DNS
> root.
> 
> Where the operators of other name spaces are selling services to others,
> ICANN urges the operators of those name spaces to take one or both of two
> steps:
> 
> - Make it clear to their customers that these name spaces are unaffiliated
>    with the ICANN namespace in any way. One effective means of doing this
>    is to not include any reference to names registered in the ICANN
>    namespace (such as .com).
> 
> - If there are names in their namespace that they wish to have added to
>    the ICANN namespace, follow the procedures for applying for such names
>    as soon as such procedures are reopened following the evaluation of the
>    first round of additions.
> 
> ---------
> 
> The logic should be obvious - make clear that the other namespaces are
> REALLY unaffiliated, and must sink or swim on their own.
> 
>         Harald, who believes in explicit policies.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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