Re: [wg-c] Re: Proprietary TLDs (was: scope and TLDs)

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Eric Brunner wrote:

> Your follow-up to #2 is that:
> a) Postel created Crown Soverignty or
> b) that ICANN slipped on a 501(c)(3) bannana peel and became an
> International Treaty body, or
> c) the public ought to comment more carefully?
> Please clarify.

I argued that the relationship between sovereign power and country code
delegations is a sensitive and as yet unresolved issue. And I produced two
pieces of evidence that your application for a .NAA delegation is supported
by some on grounds of a soveriegnty claim. I think you are the one who needs
to clarify.

Are you, or are you not, basing your claim for a TLD on national sovereignty?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

> Your follow-up to #3 revisits methodological grounds. One view holds that
> nothing can be done until some predicate condition has been satisfied,
> usually cast as some exhaustive framework or contract, at which point no
> discretion may be exercised by ICANN.

Two points were made.
a) I established a distinction between an _application_ for a TLD, and a
_policy_ that regulates how ICANN decides which applications to grant and how
to grant them, and
b) I argued for the need to substitute policy/rules for discretion.

You did not address either point.

> Your follow-up to #4 is a bit of linguistic black ice. The agreement we
> refer to by "6-10" isn't artifice, though any particular number to which we
> agree is.

The "particular number" was of course the focus of my argument. It's the
number, after all, that imposes the scarcity. I asked you in the previous
message, "Perhaps you can provide some rule or principle that would justify
your particular application in an artificially constrained (6-10)
environment." No answer.

> Sign B? You must have missed my long-form critique of your opus. Not to put
> too fine a point on it, I think it is the work of an idiot, and the

I am sorry that you are so frustrated with the attempted give and take of
this WG that you have to resort to name-calling of this sort. The fact is
that we disagree about certain issues. In general, one does not bridge
disagreements, convince bystanders or win arguments by hurling insulting
names at one's opponents. Can we agree to maintain higher standards of
communication?

> Your follow-up to #5 revisits #2, as your original comments did, without
> significant improvement. Asked and answered. If a ccTLD were available,
> none of this humorous exchange would be necessary, we'd already have it.

Still unanswered. Are you, or are you not, proposing to rebid the .NAA
registry after a specific term? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

> Have another swing.

It's unfortunate that you interpret my questions as an attempt to "swing at"
your proposal. As I have said before, you are just another registry
applicant. There are dozens of people out there who want to operate a
registry. I believe that all of these applications can and should be
satisfied as long as the names don't conflict and their operation doesn't
threaten the stability of the Internet. My analysis is simply intended to
clarify the property status of the proposed delegation and the criteria by
which, in an environment of artificial scarcity that you have supported
creating, this application might be selected over others.

> You may want to ask someone other than yourself if
> delegations are property,

I've been asking you, and you've been ducking the question for several posts.
Any time you care to answer, I'm all ears.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/