[ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Erica:
Yes, I have a lot of thoughts on how we can provide guidance to a Working Group. My main concern at this point is simply to 

a) get the NC to recognize the need for pro-active policy formation on this matter

b) get the NC to realize the benefits to the community of approaching this potentially explosive and troublesome issue in an open and non-pre-emptive way.  

No time for extensive elaboration at the moment. But I suggest that we provide a WG with a very broad, relatively simple statement, such as:

"In authorizing new Top-level domains, how should ICANN relate to TLD strings that are already occupied by other root server systems? 

"Three basic options can be considered (though the WG may identify others): 
1. Ignore them regardless of potential technical and legaql conflicts
2. Avoid making any assignments that conflict with them
3. Enter into procedural or technical methods of coordinating with them or incorporating them into the ICANN root.

Identify and carefully evaluate the costs, risks, and benefits of each option."

As I said before, I think this kind of issue is perfect for an open working group. Let all the steam blow out and all the yelling and screaming take place there, and see if some minimal consensus points can emerge from it. If nothing emerges, that in itself is a useful finding, and we can report it to the Board. If they bring forward something stupid we'll find out when we put it up for public comment. And of course, there is some chance that something useful will come out of it.

>>> "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com> 04/13/01 20:46 PM >>>
Hi Milton,
Folowing th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
that:
,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
Do you have any thoughts on this?

erica


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <webmaster@babybows.com>; <council@dnso.org>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace


> The problem of alternate or competing roots is a highly complex one. I
would support the idea of a new, open Working Group being convened on this
topic. I say this fully understanding that the debate on this topic often
takes the form of a religious war and that it is unlikely that any coherent
policy would come out of such a working group soon.
>
> However, there is some possibility that, given enough time and some clear
guidance, such a group might achieve some consensus points that could bring
about a temporary ceasefire, if not an end, to the war. And I see little
downside. At worst, the group will waste bandwidth and time and accomplish
nothing. At best, it might come up with some useful ideas. Why not give it a
try? The incremental cost of a new mailing list is pretty low.
>
>
>
> >>> "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com> 04/12/01 17:26 PM >>>
> "Constituencies or GA participants may propose that
> the NC consider domain name policies or
> recommendations."
>
> As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
> have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department
of
> Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
> lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
> consider the ICANN domain name policy with repect to collision with names
> in the alternate root community.
>
>
>


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html