[wg-c] Summary of Ambler-Brunner correspondence on A Position Paper on some new gTLDs

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Summary of correspondence between myself and Christopher Ambler on the
subject of the proposal for a TLD in the 6-9 set (consensus document)
to be operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America. For brevity
this text will be referred to as "NAA" hereafter.

Executive Summary:

	Christopher Ambler argues that the preconditions for a
	TLD operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America
	are 1) that an open market for TLDs exist, and 2) that
	the proposal for such a TLD registry contain generic
	language, not specific to the Indigenous Nations of North
	America.

	He also argues that a policy of "first-come first-served"
	for TLD allocation (cybersquatting at the registry level)
	has an effective mechanism for conflict resolution in the
	legal system.

Personal Comment:

	A claim that an issue of human rights exists does not appear
	to avail itself to a claim that market rights exist.

	I look forward to a similar examination of Milton Mueller's
	comments, as they appear at first reading to be consistent
	with those of Christopher Ambler.

Detailed Summary:

This discussion arose from Christopher Ambler's comments on the text
draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-00.txt, on 10/10, which were made to this
list (wg-c), my reply of 10/11, also to this list, and Christopher's
reply of 10/11. If the dates seem odd it is because I'm in the EST
time zone, and he is in the PST time zone.

That discussion resolved one issue, that his objection to the NAA draft
was not that all similar proposal should wait on some condition and in
a "big bang" all be instantiated simultaniously. Not resolved was just
what principle of temporal ordering for such proposals he would like
to see made a policy recommendation of Working Group C. The second phase
of the discussion has been off-list and I offer this summary of the
ideas exchanged.

I asked what parts of the draft would have to change to incorporate the
comments. The response was non-specific as to the text, rather that the
draft was specific to a group.

I asked what principle(s) for the temporal ordering of proposals should
be made policy. The response was that ICANN should create an open market
and a suggested policy for proposal aggregation (30 days), a uniqueness
test for the aggregated proposals, and "first-come first-served" after
this suggested 30 period. The response also cited rfc1591 and the desires
of Jon Postel, articulated "in his first and second drafts". Jon being
dead, and superceeded drafts of rfcs being a doubtful basis for bringing
a sucessful challenge to an IESG approved rfc, I didn't enquire further
into this offered corroboration of the principles offered.

I asked if this summary of principles for temporal ordering was accurate:

        1. When ICANN adopts a TLD allocation policy characterized
           as "open market", then
        2. After some application sollicitation period, then
        3. Upon condition of uniqueness, then
        4. TLD instantiation and registry operations are initiated.

I also asked how "first-come first-served" could prevent the form of
"cybersquatting" moving from SLD names to TLD names.

The reply was non-responsive to the first question, which I interpret
as a tacit acknowledgement that this matches Christopher's thinking on
the subject. The reply to the second part, squatting, offered two forms
of deterrent, a limit on the number of TLDs each entity may have, between
3 and 5, and a requirement that entities meet some asset threshold for
each TLD they hold.

I restated my community's goals:

	I want to ensure that non-Indians don't squat on Indian
	resources in the TLD space, not that each squatter has a
	limited number of Indian resources, nor do I want to ensure
	that squatters have deep pockets.

I mentioned my intention to write this summary, and asked if Christopher
had forgotten anything, as several of my questions were not responsively
addressed or were not addressed at all.

Christopher's response was to my restatement of my community's goals and
the problem posed by "first-come first-served" was to point to the courts.
He offered that the issue of standing to make a claim of right (sue) was
sufficient, and by implication, trivially evident.

Christopher offered the analogy for illustration that the word "Martian"
could be substituted for the word "Indian" with no loss of meaning, and
that if the NAA proposal had Indian-specific language, it should also
have Martian-specific language, and offered to supply the language. 

In the interests of completeness, I've accepted his offer to supply the
Martian-specific language, and anticipate something along the lines of
"NAAM a proposal for a TLD to be operated by the Indigenous Nations of
North America and Mars."

End of Detailed Summary.

Mail log:
   1  10/10 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<Y
   2  10/11 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<M
   3  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<>
   4  10/12 To:cambler@iodesi  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<C
   5  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<T
   6  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<T
   7  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<T
   8  10/11 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<>
   9  10/12 To:cambler@iodesi  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<C
  10  10/12 To:cambler@iodesi  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<C
  11  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<T
  12  10/12 To:"Christopher A  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<C
  13  10/12 "Christopher Ambl  Re: [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs<<F
End Mail log.