Re: [wg-c] Comments on the Brunner proposal

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 01:38:52PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
[...]
> That is, the initiative should come from the end
> users and operators, not from the top down.

The proposal I documented is as "bottom up" as is the one you
propose: ICANN/DNSO receives proposals for charters from anyone who
wants to make a proposal, and approves or disapproves them based on
community processes.  The distinction is in the approval process: in
your model there is essentially none, and the community has no
control over TLD names or policies, except for things that are
"illegal, technically unworkable or financially suspect". 

[...]

> There are important differences, however, between the prospects of
> minority-proposed TLDs under the open market system and the Crispin-proposed
> regime which Brunner endorsed.
> 
> 1. Perhaps the most important difference is that the grant of a TLD right under
> our proposal is always open to competition, and would carry no special status or
> any implication that the holder acted exclusively on behalf of some designated
> community. Another group of native Americans could come along and start their own
> TLD, using a different string, at any time.

This is true in the "Crispin-proposed" model, as well -- another responsible
group could propose another TLD oriented towards native Americans, 
and it could be approved.  

> 2. In the Crispin regime, ICANN is selecting a "public trustee" for a specific
> category.

No, that is not correct.  Instead, ICANN is selecting a policy
authority for a *specific* TLD, not a "category" (whatever you mean by
that).  Approval of a "sponsor" involves an evaluation of the 
ability of the proposed to provide stable, long-term, fair policy 
enforcement for the TLD in question.  The International Council of 
Museums seems a competent policy authority for a .museum TLD with a 
stated purpose of providing domain names for internationally 
recognized museums, for example.

> That means that ICANN must be prepared to evaluate the status of the
> applicant with respect to the policy it intends to enforce and the community it
> claims to represent.

I believe that this problem cannot be avoided.  I don't think that
ICANN can or will simply allow registries to pick their own TLDs and
their own policies.  It is already clear that new gTLDs will be 
required to adhere to a UDRP, for example.

I went to some effort in my proposal to base things on the notion of
stability -- operational stability of the Internet is, in fact,
ICANN's number one priority.  Stability is not always consistent with
innovation and experimentation.  Your model, on the other hand, takes
innovation and experimentation as the primary good.  But innovation
that undermines the stability of the Internet is not a good.  This is
the reason I stress that "sponsors" must be responsible and stable
entities. 

Another reason for my emphasis on an approval process for "sponsors"
is that the policies don't exist in a vacuum.  They may, for example,
have an impact on trademark interests. 

[...]

> Brunner and Crispin's approach to chartered TLDs pushed  seem to be
> asking ICANN to decide, on a *global* basis, who is the proper representative of
> the world's ethnic groups,

That is incorrect.  The decision, instead, is whether the NCAI would
be a stable, competent policy authority to adminster policy for a TLD
with .naa's stated charter.  That is a vastly different thing. 

 who is the most appropriate agency to handle a "travel"
> TLD, a "sports" TLD, and so on. I think the lunacy of such a policy is
> self-evident, but I would be happy to elaborate on experiences with public trustee
> licensing in the broadcasting sphere if anyone is interested.

Indeed the lunacy of such a policy is self-evident.  However, that
policy is not what I proposed. 

> 3. Once a TLD becomes a grant of public trustee status, then the process of
> assignment is politicized. That actually *decreases* the chance that minority
> interests will be effectively exercised. Many political and ethnic groups will be
> contending for status under such a regime and there's no reason why Brunner's
> should be first in line.

Your final point exercises the same misunderstanding.

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