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

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Ok, look. I am not suggesting every TLD in every root should be included by
ICANN. What I am saying is that ICANN has not set any true standards for
what a TLD operator must work by. They made personal judgement calls in the
selection process that had nothing to do with any standard criteria for
selection.

First create exact standards for which a TLD Operator would need to meet for
inclusion.

They give a grace perios for dot biz for IP interests to get their domains
before anyone else. Why not set up a time period for all tld owners who
currently hold tlds in other roots but wish to be included in the legacy
root to meet the set standards.

I think the reason is then Tucows and other Companies that are let's say
ICANN-Friendly could not then duplicate those tlds that met the standards
for inclusion.

There does not need to be a $50,000 fee to be qualified for inclusion. Let
$1 per domain name registration in the included tlds fund ICANN entirely.
Then ICANN won't have to worry about funding and if they are beholden to
anyone for their finances it would be the users who register domain names.

I don't care what any techie says. This is not a technical issue except
where maybe the IETF help set the technical requirements for operating a
TLD. It is a social and political issue that ICANN needs to resolve and this
is NOT difficult to do.

The users are more than happy to fund ICANN. We don't need the IP interests
or the Corporate money. Take the number of domains filed in one year x $1
and ICANN has more than enough to give itself those nice fat raises.

28,869,097 domains registered as of March 2001. That is a lot of money. It
is not a tax no matter how one might try to label it. I think organizations
like the IDNO and others would endorse the plan.

This gives current holders of tlds their chance to be included with no harm
to users or ICANN. They would have to meet a set of standards that should be
arrived at through a bottom up procedure THROUGH the DNSO using both the
@Large and the GA to work on it.

But of course there will be reasons given why it isn't just this easy. IT IS
THIS EASY.

You see WXW and Dassa. I am not out to destroy ICANN. I am on the list to
help find a way ICANN can perform it's functions in the manner of a
nonprofit org that represents the users not as it has been acting as a for
profit corp looking out for the IP Interests and the other corps. That is an
area where I am comfortable in stating an opinion about and more than
qualified to do so.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com>
To: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>
Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <webmaster@babybows.com>;
<ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


> At 09:17 AM 6/15/01 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>
> >It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I left
> >two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone who
> >disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
>
> My guess is that would depend upon being able to back it up with true
> facts. Not this factually-inaccurate spin that Vint sells to CNN.
>
> >The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a single
> >authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document and the
> >references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
> >Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear indication of
> >ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I suggest you read
> >them again. They are not very hard to understand and their statements
with
> >regard to an authoritative single root and to competing roots are quite
clear.
>
> It appears that short-sighted near-term policy overrides any sane
long-term
> response. Unfortunately, the consequences of such blind actions will harm
> the Internet far more than a sensible long-term policy.
>
> >My statement on ICANN Policy is not unilateral -- it is well-grounded in
> >the community processes that led to the White Paper and to the formation
> >of ICANN.
>
> Are you referring to the coup that took the IAHC away from Postel? Which
> led to the hopelessly illegal sham called the gTLD-MOU? Which the White
> Paper stopped dead, only to be subverted by the very same people who were
> behind the gTLD-MOU?
>
> Hardly what I call a "well-grounded community process".
>
> --
> 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