Re: [comments-gtlds] Paper B Best Overall

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Position Paper B is complementary to Position Paper E. Indeed, E
is a specific proposal for a new TLD registry rather than a
policy statement. As such its best chance of success lies with
the adoption of the policy put forward in Position Paper B.

Eric Brunner asserts that the author of Position Paper B, which
advocates a commitment to adding 500 new TLDs over the next three
years, "is on record that the E paper should be withdrawn or
consideration of E be deferred indefinitely."

As the author of the B paper, I can state unequivocally that this
is untrue. Indeed, if this position is "on record" Mr. Brunner
ought to be able to produce this assertion. I am quite sure that
he cannot.

What I am on record as saying is that the policy outlined in the
B paper is in the best interests of his particular proposal, and
indeed of any group that aspires to run a TLD. I asked that he
endorse the B paper because it commits ICANN to expanding the
name space significantly (500 new TLDs in 3 years) and to
cultural diversity in the assignment of TLD names. Such a policy
offered him the best possible chance that his particular proposal
for a TLD would be recognized as soon as possible. I have never
asked him to withdraw his proposal, nor would I ask any aspiring
TLD applicant to withdraw any proposal, because it is a fact that
the name space could accommodate thousands of new TLDs. I am the
Working Group member to insist most loudly and insistently that
any technically qualified registry with a legally sound proposal
ought to be able to run a registry with a name of their choosing.
That includes .NAA.

In an environment of artificial scarcity, as proposed by most of
the other position papers, the chance of .NAA or any other TLD
proposal being recognized is much smaller than if ICANN makes a
strong initial commitment to a large and uncontrained name space.
Frankly, I do not understand why Mr. Brunner did not endorse the
B proposal. I think if B is not successful, he will regret it,
because if ICANN only authorizes 6-10 TLDs there is not a chance
that one of them will be .NAA.

Mr. Brunner goes on to state: "Additionally, a substantial
portion of the B co-signers are on record that no "ethnic group"
should have access to the top-level of the DNS."

This, too, is a completely untrue statement. Mr. Brunner was
asked by two co-signers (not even close to being a "substantial
portion" of the 15 co-signers) why, in an environment of
artificial scarcity (e.g., only 6-10 gTLDs) one ethnic group
should be privileged over another in the assignment of TLD
rights. If one rejects artificial scarcity, as the signers of B
all do, then any and every ethnic group can have a TLD, if they
prepare a technically qualified proposal.

Position Paper B is not in conflict with E at all. I urge you to
read it and judge for yourself.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02018.html