<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 06:02:39PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Stuart:
>
> I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
> currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
> assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for
exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave: to give any
deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply encourage
avoidance of the ICANN process. Right now the big players don't do
alternate roots for two reasons: 1) they realize the technical
instabilities it would create; and 2) even more important, they realize
the total chaos that would prevail if ICANN gave any credence
whatsoever to alternate roots.
> I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly avoided
> a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the case
> of .BIZ.
You have a pretty weak notion of "proof". If anything, what we have is
clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy of ignoring
any precedent set by alternate roots.
[...]
> The White Paper simply does not address the issue.
Yes, it did. There is a large load of policy inherited from history,
and official rejection of alternate roots is one. Moreover, whether you
like it or not, the IAB *is* the the most authoritative technically
competent opinion available, and ICANN simply cannot ignore that fact,
no matter how much you would like it to.
> Working Group C
> did not address it.
Of course not. Neither did working groups A, B, D, or E, because that
wasn't in *any* of the WG charters. You could just as well note that
President Bushes latest speech doesn't address the issue.
> Nor did the Names Council resolution passing on
> WGC's recommendation to create new TLDs.
Of course not. See above.
> In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
> you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask
> you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am raising.
> We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
> policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
> or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person
> cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
> not been carefully defined and explored.
Sorry, that is utter nonsense, and please don't cloak yourself in the
"honest person" flag -- an honest person would notice that there are
many more possible and likely interpretations of past events than the
facile one that you propose.
It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history of
rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by years.
And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows
representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root would
instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be thousands of
new alternate tlds immediately insisting on recognition.
--
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|