Re: .NU Domain Has a Governance Model

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> 
> Let's not go overboard here;-)...
> 
> If you convert every business model issue into a governance issue, who
> is going to take vare of business while everyone is busy governing?
> 
> If I read you correctly, you think that Government shoudl decide all
> business models because business doing it for them selves is somehow
> an evil idea.

Not government, but a coalition of the overriding interests involved with
managing the TLDs. All or most of the ccTLDs are presently run by some sort
of private sector/public sector/university/national gov't coalition, in
accord with RFC 1591. This is apparently going to continue, since most
people involved want ti to continue (viz all the support for the RFC
guidelines in recent comments to the drafting teams). Since the .nu
management model has been very well organized and works well, why not use it
as a basis for analyzing all the management models of TLDs?

If you are proposing a strictly "business model", where there will be no (or
reduced) public sector/national government/university collaboration, well,
that isn't going to happen with the ccTLDs (perhaps with exception of a very
few in the CENTR group), and probably isn't going to be acceptable to ICANN
for the gTLDs, either (and I mean the new gTLDs as well as the old).

I realize that this whole subject is going to need a lot of discussion and
debate before any real consensus guidelines can be accepted; what I am
suggesting is that, since the coalitions like IATLD, CENTR, etc. are now
starting to make concrete proposals for management models, and since the
DNSO is being created at the same time, it would seem to be a useful thing
to provide a framework for resolving these issues in the DNSO, a defined
committee, with working groups, and a way for people like Bill Semitch to
get their models discussed, compared, and eventually integrated into a
proposal for ICANN.

Why wait any longer to do this? Now, during the formation of the DNSO, is
the time to prepare a forum for this work, instead of waiting for ICANN to
have a final membership and structure, which could take a year or more.

All I'm suggesting, really, is that the energy produced by the DNSO drafting
efforts can be used to also prepare the way for the debates that need to
happen on this and similar issues. If we wait for ICANN to form the final
DNSO, we will lose the present energy and organization.


> }> In short, I do not see this as a Goverance Issue aws much as that of a
> }> Business Model Issue.
> }
> }If you reduce TLD management to a "business model", you are denying its
> }social relevance. No model in which business is the only criterion is goi=
> }ng
> }to be accepted. You should widen your scope and admit the equal relevance=
> } of
> }government and public interest in TLD management, and change the name of
> }your model. By continually refering to "business models", you isolate
> }yourself and your ideas.