Re: PAB [kent@songbird.com: Onward]

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:55:04PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
[...]
> >
> >     The DNSO recognizes that current registries have already existing
> >     relationships with their registrants and, in many cases, with
> >     sovereign governments.  The DNSO recognizes that there is a
> >     strong presumption of continued stable operation of these
> >     relationships.
> 
> Kent, you talk about these relationships, but I just don't know of very
> many.  Which of the many ccTLDs that have relations with sovereign
> governments are you talking about?  If you mean that governments are aware
> of their existence, then I suppose that's a relationship, and you are
> correct.  If you mean that there is any formal or contractual relationship,
> I believe you are gravely mistaken.  Would you care to give some examples?
> Of domains with more than 15,000 names in them (the top 20), I can think of
> only two.

No, I don't mean contractural relationships.  I am only interested de
facto relationships, of which there are many, whether supported by
contract or not. 

> Also, rather than devolve the responsibilities and rights of registries into
> a mere power relationship, especially with nice-sounding language that means
> very little when rubbed, polished, and examined, why not simply ask for
> continuation of the current guidelines which TLDs should follow.  How about:

You misunderstand my intent.  I am very well aware of your and IATLD's 
position concerning rfc1591.  But the evidence is incontrovertible that 
it is a controversial position -- the response on this list makes it 
clear, but it has been obviously controversial for some time.  That 
is, there is no widespread community consensus behind it.  And, from 
what I can see, there is no consensus even in the ccTLD community -- 
only about a third of the ccTLDs belong to IATLD, and almost none of 
the big ones.

Given that fact, I am trying to propose language that we can all
agree to, as a starting point -- language that we can reach something
approaching consensus on.  And I think there is widespread agreement
to the above language -- it seems to me a simple recognization of
fact -- and it does give you a bit of what you want. 

Obviously, you would like more.  Obviously, insertion of language 
concerning rfc1591 is going to be a rough road.  Let's try a 
different tack:

All the TLDs, regardless of the sovereignty issue, have expressed a
desire for some extra control over their destiny -- supermajority,
pre-recommendation review, selective veto.  But every other
constituency would like the same thing, and the DNSO has a
requirement for *fair* processes.  How about the following language
(modified Section 8 in the merged draft):

  Within the Names Council decisions shall be arrived at through a
  rough consensus basis, to the extent possible.  Such decisions
  shall be recorded as "consensus decisions".  Consensus will be
  assessed by the Chair of the Names Council.  If two or more Names
  Council members formally object to the measure in question, the
  Chair shall determine that a consensus has not been achieved, and
  shall call for a formal vote. 

  In such cases where consensus cannot be achieved and a formal vote
  is deemed necessary, the matter shall be publicized before the DNSO
  for 15 days, and then a formal, public, recorded online vote of the
  Names Council shall be taken.  The measure shall pass if two thirds
  of the votes cast are in the affirmative.  However, in any policy
  recommendation the count shall be reported in full to ICANN, so
  that ICANN may independently judge the extent of support for the
  proposition. 

  For any policy recommendation, regardless of the vote, the Names
  Council shall include any dissenting opinion developed through fair
  and open consensus processes from any Constituency. 

This is a generalization of the CENTR proposal.  It treats all
Constituencies equally; it gives "producers" (registrars and
registries) a *near* veto on any measure that affects them; and,
under any circumstances, requires that any strong dissenting opinion
*must* be conveyed to ICANN.  This is also similar, but not
identical, to NSI's "pre-review" mechanism, but it still allows a
strong majority opinion to be carried to ICANN over the objection of
any single Constituency.

This doesn't address the sovereignty issue directly.  But if, as you
seem to believe, the ccTLDs all feel as you do, then they (and their
registrars) will have a collectively a strong say and a near veto in
any policy that touches that issue. 

I am interested in any comments anyone may have on the above 
proposed language, incidentally.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain