Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 10:13:33PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 01:59 PM 8/7/99 , Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >1) Do you feel that individual TLDs are a;
> >     a) scarce resource
> >     b) plentiful resource
> 
> They are not a resource at all.  They are zones
> of a private distributed database service and
> they are virtually unlimited.  Ref. RFC 882
> 
> 
> >2) Should there be a specific separation between TLD governance and TLD
> >operation?
> 
> The notion of TLD governance has no meaning within
> the context of a private distributed database service.
> They are operated by the providers.

I have argued strongly for some time that all this is not about
"governance".  We agree 100% on this matter.  

Note, however, the implication that the providers of root zones are,
therefore, private, and, as such, are completely free to set whatever
policies they want, and to require whatever contracts they want of
the registries that might have entries in their root. 

The provider of the "legacy" root zone, will be ICANN, since the USG
is transferring control of the "legacy root" to ICANN.  Of course
ICANN, as a private entity, is completely free to impose whatever
policies it desires on the registries that have entries in its root
zone -- the only realistic restriction is anti-trust, stemming from
the fact that the legacy root has virtually 100% of the market share
of root zone providers. 

So what we are discussing is not "governance", but rather the
contract terms the *private* entity ICANN will impose on registries
that wish to use its root zone. 

For example, if ICANN decided that it will only do new registry
contracts with non-profit entities, that would be a perfectly
reasonable thing for a private entity to do.  

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