Re: [wg-c] We need a root registry context

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

1. The attempts at discovery of the technical basis for claims of error
or non-necessity in the operational character of the Crispin proposal or
the Brunner proposal did not result in the actual disclosure of error or
non-necessity, nor with principled disagreement between differing visions.
This feature is shared by each B Group member engaged on the technical
merits, and the G author.

Non-dialogue over the technical merits of mechanism precudes the attempt
at dialogue over the economic or social merits of policy.

1b. The registry authorized by the NCAI is going to be operational next
month, staging is inappropriate as it has limited diagnostic or operational
utility. Besides, I'd rather be shot than seen in public with you guys ;-)

2. The ordering suggested has been offered in several forms, "get behind
B and wait", etc.

These all share the vision that the "free market" must preempt social
policy, if not constrain all policy to "free market" mechanisms. This
vision is not shared by the United States. It remains to be seen if it
is shared by the ICANN Board under the By-Laws process.

3. See yesterday's reply to Jon, the first section. There is no consensus
that the methodology proposed by Milt (originally a "framework", now a
"contract") pre-exist specific consideration. It also isn't clear when
such a precondition could be satisfied.

---

WG-C need not make a unified report on any subject, and is unlikely to do
so even on the simplist of abstract questions, e.g., the nature of data
held by registry operators. There is no need to reconcile irreconcilables,
only to report honestly the intersection if any, the union, and the weight
each irreconcilable alternative within the working group.

Wildly inconsistent mail to the list, not to mention the truely awful bits
sent privately, are not worth missing Sunday-after-Armistice Mass for, and
are a waste of a post.

Cheers,
Eric

------- Forwarded Message

[...]

[2]
>That said, I still don't believe that NAA should have any more precedence
>than the rest of the TLDs in waiting (and currently staged on the
>SuperRoot.NET, DSO.NET, and MHSC.NET servers).

[1b]
>If you are willing to set up
>TLD root-servers then MHSC will stage NAA along with everyone else in
>waiting.

[3]
>We continually seem to be getting ahead of ourselves here and start arguing
>the merits, if any, of particular TLD types/names over others. That is a
>waste of time until we get a root-registry process sorted out. We can never
>have a meaningfull discussion on the topic until we have the relevant
>context for it. That context does not yet exist and never has. IMHO, we need
>to create it now.

[1]
>The first step to creating such a context is to define the components. Will
>you join me in begining such a discussion?

>Can we begin by agreeing that this is not a zero-sum game? Can anyone else
>agree with this?

------- End of Forwarded Message