Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 09:36 PM 02/08/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>No is suggesting, at least not I, that ICANN doesn't
>need reform from the top to the bottom, but agreeing
>with that does not mean you should agree with the
>letter Verisign et. al. wrote, or the comments they
>made in the media about it.

I wasn't doing that, I was pointing out that a
monopoly calling a lesser monopoly a monopoly,
when that greater monopoly has pretty much
dropped the ball on its task of lessening the
smaller monopoly still further seems like a
weak and wacky sort of argument. Pot. Kettle.

>In fact, because this letter ask for changes
>that would go AGAINST many of the things we
>want to see changed inside of ICANN, there
>is a responsibility to oppose it.

Whoa. Whadya mean we? On reading the letter
and the press quotes, I don't generally
oppose what VeriSign and the ccTLDs are
saying. I don't think ICANN should regulate
prices, services, or business practices of
gTLDs, that is the role of governments,
courts, and the marketplace. Now in certain
very limited situations perhaps they should
do so, or they should do so only with the
explicit agreement and even ongoing guidance
of relevant governments, but in general I
think it would be far better if they get/stay
out of that realm. Short of ensuring that a
corp (including non-profits) appears to have
the wherewithal (including to an extent
financial, perhaps a performance bond) to
function properly as a registry or registrar,
and ensuring that there is someone (and
something) to hand off to if they fail, they
should stay out of the way. Let governments
and courts and the market sort it out, they
have more expertise, more experience, and
are more accountable.

Now I do agree that Lynn has a point. It
was VeriSign who agreed to this, so too
bad for VeriSign in that case. I don't
know enough about their current agreement,
and don't have the legal knowledge anyway,
to determine whether or not the WLS should
or does fall within that agreement. That
seems to me a central question that needs
answering. Something tells me we may have
to wait until courts answer that one. We
have already seen part of the government
weigh in.

With regards to the ccTLD position, I agree
with them almost entirely. Otherwise who
will be the next Robert Elz? And I don't
want or need no stinkin' UDRP in .ca, thanks.
ICANN has been a real jerk to the ccTLDs by
trying to play hardball with updates and now
they're paying for it. Too bad for ICANN.

>If you give even the semblance of support
>to this letter, you are asking for the type
>of ICANN that Verisign wants, and that is
>one where they get to call all the shots.

Well, Lynn is right about that too, or at
least I think it was him that said something
like: everyone wants a thinner ICANN, but if
you add up the parts each group want to keep,
you're not shedding much poundage.

But in this case I think I'm pretty much
in agreement with VeriSign and the ccTLDs
about what needs to be trimmed, although
as I say, VeriSign's legacy contract is
their problem. If they want to rip it up
and go away and hand over the keys, well,
goodbye and, I don't like VeriSign for
any number of reasons, good riddance.

>The concept "the enemy of my enemy is my
>friend" does not always apply

Quite so, hey, I've agreed with Lynn twice
already, I'm trying. :) To the extent that
this is about, or at least sparked by, the
WLS, I oppose it, always have, and probably
always will. If it falls within the contract
terms, I urge ICANN to reject it for any
number of reasons. Even if it falls outside
the contract terms, I urge ICANN to reject
it for any number of reasons. I suspect at
least a few could be found that would still
be within the purview of even a much thinner
ICANN. For just one example, I think that
a stability and security argument can be made
that the current owner of a domain name that
has been used in any fashion should have a
say in who the subsequent owner is, and if
they don't want that say they can sign off
on that. If I let a name drop and someone
else picks it up, they can get email intended
for me. Giving existing registrants that power
would doom the WLS I think. It would also doom
some of those arguing against it, but hey, the
enemy of my enemy and all that... -g

--
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