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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stuart and all,

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> Dear Milton:
>
> Thank you for your note. Comments interspersed below. Stuart
>
> At 5:55 PM -0400 6/15/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >Stuart:
> >I see (and I'm sure everyone else does as well) that you have
> >not addressed my question.
>
> ***I am looking for a question in your earlier posting but only can
> see a series of statements. Which particular statement would you
> rather phrase as a question?
>
> You do say "We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
> policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be". Perhaps that
> is what you are referring to. And I agree with you that those two
> questions should not be confused. But that does not change my view
> that there is a prior policy. And incidentally, that view is
> apparently shared by many, many people who have spoken -- mostly at
> Stockholm -- with or written to me and thanked me for writing the
> draft.

  Could you be more specific as to what the "Prior Policy" was to which
you refer?  It is is the "One true Root" belief, than we have some
disagreement.

> And to be sure there are others who take the opposite
> viewpoint.
>
> >
> >Reiterating your adherence to a "single authoritative
> >root" does not provide any guidance as to whether new TLDs
> >added to ICANN's root should or should not avoid conflict with
> >TLDs in use by other roots. In either case, one could say one is
> >adhering to a single, authoritative root.
>
> ****That is an interesting distinction but one which, in my view
> glosses over a major point. My paper does not assert that ICANN would
> purposely grant the same TLD name to one that already exists in an
> alternate root. Neither, on the other hand,  did it say that it would
> purposely avoid doing so.

  Ok so where does the ICANN BoD stand than?  I think we already
know where the stakeholders stand.  They have voted with their registrations.
Although it seems that the ICANN BoD does not wish to acknowledge those
registrations/votes officially anyway....

> What it in effect said is that it would be
> erroneous for any alternate (pseudo or otherwise) root operator to
> *assume* that ICANN would necessarily avoid doing so. What the draft
> effectively says is that ICANN's orderly decision process (always, of
> course, subject to improvement) operating within its public trust
> would not be preempted by actions taken by others operating outside
> of the public trust.

  What public trust are you referring to here?  Any public trust is established

by it's participants or stakeholders if you will...

> That is, do not assume that by creating a TLD
> within an alternate root, you receive credit with ICANN's own
> processes and can thereby tie ICANN's hands.

  Well that's fine and dandy!  However to after the fact recommend to
DOC/NTIA any TLD that is already in operation but outside or the
ICANN BoD and staffs direct influence is predicating instability
of the DNS.  That would therefore seem to be contrary to
the #1 priority of the White Paper...

>
>
> ****To put it another way. ICANN has no policy asserting that it will
> give credit to any TLD created outside of ICANN's processes. Which
> means precisely that ICANN can give no credit to any TLD created
> outside of ICANN's processes. Which is what I wrote.
>
> *****By my reading, however, the White Paper does in fact provide
> guidance on this point. It repeatedly refers to the need for
> decisions about new TLDs to be coordinated in a way that is
> accountable to the community (in so many words). Simply allowing any
> alternate root to preempt names hardly sounds like such
> accountability to me.

  I don't see any current Competitiv/Inclusive root or registry for a TLD
preempting anything.  Discussion of additional TLD's be made available
(By whatever means) has been ongoing for over 5 years now.  Long
before ICANN was in existence.  Rather it seems obvious that the
questionable method that the ICANN BoD and staff have thus far
undertaken to introduce new TLD's into the USG/Legacy Roots
is in the position of being the Pre-emptor.  And of course lets not
forget that these ICANN TLD's were not determined by the
stakeholders at all, ergo not consensus process as to which ones
and how they were determined.

> What would stop such a root from choosing all
> the nouns in Webster's and any other dictionary to preempt future
> competition? Where would community accountability and coordination be
> in such a case?

  I would be from the stakeholders that registered those Domain Names
in those TLD name spaces of course....

>
>
> *****We now have interesting situations where, quite independently of
> ICANN, there is conflict between most of new.net's names and names in
> other alternate roots.

  This is a rarity presently.  And is being addressed aggressively presently.

> This is the expected result of a regime where
> root-zone decisions are made in an uncoordinated fashion by companies
> based on their individual commercial concerns.

  There is little or no creditable evidence that any uncoordinated "Fashion"
is being used between other root structures or registries outside of ICANN.
It does seem though that the ICANN BoD and staff are unwilling or
unable to coordinate with other existing Root structures and registries
very well if at all...  This is evident with the "Selection" of .BIZ and
.INFO by a raffle process initiated and directed from the ICANN
BoD and staff....

> Given the incentive
> for a better-financed commercial actor to muscle aside a weaker one,
> the result of this lack of coordination is name conflicts that
> certainly does not make for a stable DNS.

  True enough!  As such than why is the ICANN BoD and staff advocating
doing so as is evident with .BIZ and .INFO when they already knew that
operating registries for these two TLD's existed???

>
>
> ****Perhaps the language in my draft needs to be clarified and indeed
> strengthened in this regard. I'll take a look at it. Thank you for
> making the point.
>
> >
> >But since the object of your "discussion draft" was to pre-empt
> >discussion rather than to faciliitate it, I see that you are being
> >quite consistent.
>
> ****That is an assertion for which I would like to see your
> foundation, since the assertion is absolutely false. Once again, you
> are impugning motives to me without checking with me first -- there
> is no way you can know my motives unless I tell you. In fact, not
> only did I expect and welcome discussion within a community that is
> not known to be reticent, but I have clearly provoked it. That is no
> surprise to me whatsoever. I would have been more disappointed by the
> absence of discussion. And, incidentally, I have received a number of
> very constructive comments on the draft, many of which I hope to
> reflect in the final version.
>
> >
> >I agree with Brett Fausetts statement. The issue now has
> >more to do with process. DNSO process has broken down
> >on every serious policy issue. You have contributed to that.
>
> ***Interesting assertion, but again no foundation. (1) I am not sure
> I would agree with the assertion that the DNSO process has in fact
> broken down, although I am sure there is always room for improvement
> as with any part of ICANN. (2) I do understand, though, that you
> voted in favor of the Names Council resolution that declared that
> "the Names Council considers that multiple roots are outside the
> scope of the DNSO", a resolution that seems at odds with positions
> you had expressed in earlier emails. Apparently you were convinced by
> your colleagues.  I think you are trying to assign responsibility to
> *me* for the fact that apparently you were unable to persuade your
> Names Council colleagues to share your original point of view.
> Perhaps *you* should take responsibility yourself for not being
> sufficiently convincing.
>
> >
> >Let me recall, Stuart, when we first met in Washington, you
> >argued that the revision of the Verisign contracts was not a
> >change in policy either. You argued that you did not need the
> >consent or approval of the Names Council.
> >
> >Fortunately, the NC ignored that and passed a resolution calling
> >for changes in the agreement. Your patrons at the Commerce Dept
> >and FTC seemed to agree with the NC, didn't they? That "non-policy"
> >issue attracted serious attention from the US executive branch
> >and is still attracting serious attention from the US Congress.
> >
> >Your credibility is eroding.
>
> ****Your "spin" of what transpired seriously jumbles the facts.
>
> ****The Board, of which I subsequently became a member, reviewed the
> VeriSign contract revisions and concluded that they did not
> constitute a policy revision. And I certainly agreed with the
> majority of the Board (even though I was not a member at the time of
> the Melbourne meeting, the Board implicitly reemphasized its decision
> at its subsequent meeting when I was a member). The Board, however,
> did ask the community, including the Names Council, for comment
> during a 30-day comment period, not because it was a policy matter,
> but because the Board likes to receive input from the community
> whenever it can. The Names Council ignored nothing -- the NC's input
> was specifically solicited in a Board resolution and was responsive
> to that resolution. The NC  provided helpful comments that they
> regarded as being essential to a "win-win" situation. I and other
> members of the ICANN staff worked hard to incorporate as many of
> those comments a possible, and subsequent negotiations (right up to
> the last) resulted in most of them being incorporated into the final
> agreements. The NC input was very helpful.
>
> ****In this case, the ICANN processes worked really well. I sense you
> might have been happier had we gone ahead with signing the agreements
> and obtaining ultimate DoC approval without incorporating any of the
> NC suggestions. Then you really and justifiably could have criticized
> the results.
> >
> >
> >>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/15/01 12:17PM >>>
> >
> >[childish insult deleted]
>
> ****The smiley face at the end indicated a joke. Please do not
> consider it an insult. On the other hand, do you consider it mature
> behavior to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest?
>
> >
> >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. 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.
> >
> >
> >At 6:02 PM -0400 6/14/01, 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.
> >  >
> >>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. Both decisions were off-the-cuff ones made by the Board in
> >>November. But there is no documented policy process that would explain
> >  >why they avoided conflict in one instance and not in another.
> >  >
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: lynn@icann.org
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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