Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:26 AM 6/16/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:16:15AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > "Stability of the Internet" is hardly a policy, but rather one of
> > the basic principles underlying ICANN.
>
>There is no substantive difference.

There's no way that what ICANN is doing can *EVER* be considered "stable". 
See below.

> > Second, you quote the white paper's sentence that "the introduction
> > of a new managmenet system should not disrupt current operations or
> > create competing root systems".  This sentence is indeed listed as a
> > principle to which ICANN should commit.  Thus, it is indeed the
> > closest thing to a policy on alternative roots which is listed in
> > the entire white paper.
> >
> > But what does this sentence really say?  Does it say anything about
> > how ICANN should handle TLDs which are registered in alternative
> > root systems?  No.
>
>Nonsense.  It gives a clear direction to ICANN that it should not
>encourage the creation of alternate root systems.  And it is crystal
>clear that any recognition of existing alternate root systems would be
>an encouragment for the creation of more.

False. The White Paper's goal was to create sufficient competition within 
the IANA/USG root so that alternate roots would not be necessary. ICANN's 
behaviour is diametrically opposed to those goals by creating an artificial 
barrier to entry. This results in competition being forced into other root 
systems. Example, the creation of the New.net root system was a direct 
result of ICANN's failure to introduce competition into the IANA/USG root.

ICANN has clearly failed to meet the goals of the White Paper. It's refusal 
to recognize other root systems further reinforces this failure.

> > But anyway, this quote once again only says that decisions to add
> > new TLDs must be made following due process.  It does not say what
> > kinds of objective deliberations should be part of this process, and
> > whether or not particular attention should be paid to existing
> > alternative roots.  (This is actually a good thing: ICANN may happen
> > to encounter a situation in which an alternative TLD is so
> > well-established that creating a competing incarnation of that TLD
> > would cause actual damage and destroy both players.  In such a
> > situation, ICANN would have to take alternative roots into account.)
>
>Sure -- if someone holds a gun to your head you will give them your
>wallet.  That doesn't mean that you have a policy of recognizing
>robbery as a legitimate activity.

Isn't that why the ccTLD community is in revolt? Because ICANN has a policy 
to rob them blind without providing them anything in return?


Best Regards,

Simon

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

--
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